On 20 November 2012 00:55, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 2012/11/19 Sébastien Pierrel <sebastien.pier...@gmail.com>: > > What do you think of money_transfer=agent + > operator:money_transfer="Western > > Union"? > > > I think it is pointless to have operator:money_transfer rather than a > simple "operator". The tag should refer to the object that is tagged, > and if it is a money transfer it will refer to that, also when you > don't prefix it. I didn't check if it is western union that operates > the office, or if it is a kind of franchise in which case it would be > tagged as "brand=Western Union" > > I also don't share the idea that amenity is "over used". Could you > explain the problem? > > In my case, I wanted to mapped the local branch of a bank: amenity=bank + name="Banque de commerce du Burundi" That branch happens to be a Western union agent. Since this business is primarily a bank, it should bear amenity=bank. Hence the need for another key for this service. I think this is justified since money transfer agents are rarely a business of their own, rather a service that other businesses offer. Also Western Union is not the operator of the bank. I find the combo of values for a key with a semicolon (i.e amenity=bank;money_transfer) extremely awkward. I don't like amenity:bank=yes + amenity:money_transfer=yes much better either. I'd rather have two nodes in a relation. Cheers, /Seb.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
