Though, I have to admit that introducing new categories nor moving tags from one to another is not easy and often bricks, like osm-carto will not support it for quite some time, are through between your legs.
Still in favour of introducing some more categories. cu fly Am 24.02.2015 um 20:02 schrieb Frederik Ramm: > On 02/23/2015 02:43 AM, Kurt Blunt wrote: >> Right now, tags serve two distinct purposes. There are attribute tags >> like name=Wall Street, and there are category tags like >> amenity=parking or aeroway=helipad. > > This works for many things but not all; the border can be blurred. You > will not be able to fit every key into your "category or attribute" schema. > >> Many tags don't even make sense. What does highway=track mean? Is it >> a highway that acts as a track? A track is clearly not a type of >> highway. A track is just a track. > > And if you travel along a dark track in the night then you might be > robbed by a highwayman. > >> A contributor is left to feel like >> an idiot for not understanding the logic behind this system. > > Woe betide all who mistake highway=unclasssified for a street that lacks > classification. > >> For these reasons, I believe there is a case to be made for an >> overhaul of category tags. My personal opinion is that we should get >> rid of super-keys altogether and instead promote all categories to >> keys with empty values: "amenity"="reception_desk" becomes >> "reception_desk"="", "highway"="track" becomes "track"="", >> "aerialway"="gondola" becomes "gondola"="", "barrier"="city_wall" >> becomes "city_wall"="", "historic"="city_gate" becomes >> "city_gate"="", "sport"="volleyball" becomes "volleyball"="", etc. > > And power=line becomes line="" and barrier=line becomes, uh, wait a minute. > > It is not so simple, even leaving aside the fact that many programs > would simply dismiss your empty values. > >> Now, I don't actually think such an overhaul is currently feasible >> given the massive burden it would put on the database system. >> However, it might be something to think about for the future. > > I think that in theory what you call "super keys" is a good thing to > have because it gives you a layered level of understanding. For example, > if someone tags > > natural=water > water=lake > lake=turlough > > then you have a chance to understand "this is a natural feature" (and > not man-made) even if you don't know what a lake is; you can understand > "this is a lake" (and not a reservoir) even if you don't know what a > turlough is; or you're so much into water bodies that you can actually > understand the full message. > > If the tag was instead the space-saving > > turlough="" > > then you'd be stumped without recourse to the giant tag dictionary that > explains to your renderer that something tagged turlough="" should > perhaps be drawn in a blue-ish colour. > > Matter in a nutshell: Certainly the way we use these "super tags" has a > lot of historical baggage but I don't think it is a stupid idea per se, > *especially* if your goal is (like you're claiming yours to be) making > tags easy for mappers. > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
