On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Andreas Labres <l...@lab.at> wrote: > On 28.03.13 11:18, Erik Johansson wrote: >> This sounds more like an tourism attraction than a hut though > > If it is a tourism attraction tag it as tourism=attraction (that's what I > said). > > But don't tag it for this reason: "to increase the chance that the historic=* > actually renders as something...".
We all know "don't tag for the renderer" mantra, repeating it is pointless. I'm pointing out that this is neither objectively an attraction nor a shelter, and also it is in the intersection between macro and micromapping.. Sure you can micro map it, but it's really too much work to tag it like this: node: building=hut tourism=attraction name="Smith Hut (ruins)" note="historic feature built blablabla see more about smith huts" node: tourism=camp_site backcountry=yes impromptu=yes So you are probably going to end up with a one node solution, one could also call it disused:amenity=shelter shelter_type=wather_shelter tourism=attraction name="Smith hut (ruins)" note="historic feature built blablabla see more about smith huts" My view is that many tags in OSM are either too specific or too general, alpine_hut/tucan crossing/pelican crossing/basc_shelter are to specific and tourism=attraction might be too general. Going after Steves description I'm not sure I would like to discover this when I went to find a hut. Increased chance to render is a great reason to tag something. /Erik _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
