On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Elizabeth Dodd <ed...@billiau.net> wrote: > On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:43:28 -0500 > Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > >> > It is true that they are at least partly a subgroup of amenity, >> > which is by general judgement quite overcrowded at the moment. >> >> Overcrowded? Less than 0.0000000000000000000000001% of possible >> values are taken. > > How about containing too many to search effectively?
Search in what context? How does arbitrarily partitioning into overlapping categories make searching any easier? One of the best things I ever did to facilitate searching my general reference file drawers was to get rid of the multitude of arbitrary overlapping categories. Categories are great if you're dealing with a system which allows some sort of symbolic linking, but when it comes to storage of things which can only be at one location at a time, categories don't work unless they consist of very carefully designed partitions. The great thing with storing things without categories is you can always create an index outside of the actual storage location, and that index can have *overlapping* categories in it. Is is really obvious to everyone but me which of (archaeological_site, art_gallery, artwork, bar, bookstore, cafe, cinema, dance, garden, library, memorial, monument, museum, park, pub, sports_centre, stadium, theatre, theme_park, and zoo) are supposed to be "culture" and which are supposed to be some other key? _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
