Supported. I'm another person who wants (and will work on) a more coherent tagging system. Thats 4 of us now. The original anarchic approach of "pick a tag, any tag" is not working for me.
We have competition between tags for landuse, natural, amenity, surface, vegetation and landcover. The overlaps and confusion makes rendering really difficult and (very importantly) makes it really hard for new contributors to tag their contributions. I'm not opposed to any of those tags, but there needs to be an enabling structure in place. On shops..... I favour point amenities. I don't like area amenities. Most urban features can be shown with an area of 'landuse=xyz' and can, if needed, be further tagged with one or more 'amenity=abc' icons. So, YES, I agree that amenity=shop should be superceded by landuse=shop, with one or more subordinate key-value pairs to indicate the type. Like 'shop=bookstore'. Plus if its a public service in some way, it can be tagged separately as an amenity with an icon. As to the problem of being heard on setting structured tagging rules, there is an official procedure for publishing a proposal page and publicising it on the lists. OSM loosely follows RFC 2026, as does Wikipedia. Regardless of importance and size of the change my own inclination is to follow the Proposal procedure patiently or you just generate heaps of content-free whinge spam. Craig > > Now it gets really interesting: given that more people than just us 3 > ;-P wants to have more coherent tagging system and approves such > migration, how should it be done? I guess we have no procedures for > such important and big changes yet. We're ready for adding new > features, but not so much for changing already existing - especially > well established ones - and I think we will really need it one day > (even if not this time). _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
