Sorry.. don't know what an 'allotment plot' is? I don't see that
mentioned in the OSMwikis for golf.
I follow the rest of the 'ref' argument. Will have to look at it.
On 02/08/18 22:09, Paul Allen wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Chris Hill <o...@raggedred.net
<mailto:o...@raggedred.net>> wrote:
I think people use the ref tag because that makes sense.
In some situations, where name=* is already used for one thing but a
reference number is also needed, it makes
sense. In other situations t doesn't make sense (to me) to use ref,
which isn't rendered, rather than name.
I'm not a golfer but on allotments the whole site usually has a
name and the individual plots have a number (ref=*).
Yes, that's how it was defined. Which makes no sense. Because what
use is it not displaying allotment numbers?
As it happens, plots aren't rendered at all in OSM Carto, but I
believe it's on the to-do list. When (if) that happens then
the plot boundaries will be rendered but the plot number will not (if
you do what the wiki says and identify them with
ref).
The guy who wrote the proposal for allotment plots gave an example in
his proposal. Of the entire allotment NONE
of them had refs, but one of them had a name. So it didn't make
sense, even to him.
The OSM Standard map can't show everything. We used to have a map
like that as a sort of 'debug' map for mappers; it was useful but
horrible to look at as everything was jammed in and not one to
share more widely.
Please don't use that argument for allotments and golf courses,
because it doesn't apply to them. Sure, in some
situations not everything fits. I've mapped shops along a high street
and not all of their names display because there
is no room (vector mapping may allow higher zooms one day, and then
they will display). But that's not the case with
allotments or golf courses. There's plenty of room for plot
numbers/hole numbers to be displayed without looking
cluttered because they are widely-spaced and there are no other
details nearby.
An argument I might accept is that the steps transforming data to
rendering are horribly complex and highly
inefficient and we don't have the compute power to handle allotments
and golf courses on top of everything else. But
please don't trot out the "clutter" argument where it doesn't apply.
Abusing the name tag is a common beginner's mistake, let's not
encourage even more use of the name tag - rather make or find a
render that shows what you want for a particular purpose.
Please explain WHY it's an abuse to use the name tag for golf holes or
allotment plots. Name is to be used for names
and not descriptions, but "hole 7" and "plot 15" can be viewed as both
names and descriptions. As in "I saw him 5 minutes
ago teeing off at hole 7." In fact, you'd never say "I saw him 5
minutes ago teeing off at a hole that looks sort of sevenish."
The number of a hole or plot is a name as much as a description, if
not more so.
What might be more sensible is for the carto to render a ref if there
is no name=* in the same way that house names
get rendered if there is no addr:number (which applies to about half
the houses where I live). But I'd still like to know
why golf greens and allotment plots specified ref instead of name.
--
Paul
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
