That seems to be almost philosophical question about a perfect tag. I prefer more structured approach, like you proposed for bathing. LM
2012/3/12 Johan Jönsson <joha...@goteborg.cc>: > LM_1 <flukas.robot+osm@...> writes: >> 2012/3/11 Johan Jönsson <johan.j <at> goteborg.cc>: >> > leisure=bandstand is a good tag. >> > The bandstand is a prominent feature that is easy to map, so ease of > mapping >> > with one tag is prefect. >> >> Is this not bad, having more (independent) information in one tag? Imagine > that >> person A - technocratic deaf engineer who hates music >> and >> person B - artist who loves music and does not care a bit whether it >> is inside or outside or anything about buildings. >> Both happen to be mappers: on cannot input the interesting >> construction without adding info about music, the other cannot enter >> music without construction. > That is the same reasons that I find this a good tag, whether you are type a > or type b, you will know it is a bandstand and tag it with that. Easy. > > The type a-mapper could add more tags regarding architectural style, the type > b-mapper could add more tags regarding music-style. If they do not want or > know anything more, the tag bandstand is enough. > > If per chance they do not know it is called a bandstand I guess there are no > problems if they map it with pavilion or music_venue > > /Johan Jönsson > p.s. > (As a generalist I would of course prefer if there where a tagging scheme for > all pavilions and music_venues out there. building=pavilion pavilion=bandstand > and music_venue=open-air_scene, music_venue:size=small or something like that) > d.s. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
