Le 14.04.19 à 21:35, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : >> On 14. Apr 2019, at 18:36, marc marc <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> one of the problems is that each key has its own logic >> a part of a amenity=building is building:part=* >> a part of the amenity=parking is amenity=parking_space >> a part of a leisure=sports_centre is leisure=pitch unless it is water >> then it is leisure=swimming_pool >> >> new keys deserve to have some consistency. >> e.g. :part if the part does not have a name in itself > I don’t follow this, a part of a park is a park:part (bench, tree etc)? A > part of a city? > This would be ridiculous or ambiguous or arbitrary most of the time, but for > buildings it works well, also if the part has its own name. I was obviously talking about the case where the parts have the same characteristics as the whole. an amenity=parking capacity=1 have the same characteristic as a parking_space capacity=1. I wasn't talking about dividing a park into lots of :part for every tree, every bench, every blade of grass. a bench is not part of a park, it is an equipment found in some of them. if you cut a leisure=park in 2 to say that one part has a different tag from the other (for example, a part closed at night), it would be a bit silly to invent a new term to say "part of a park" or to have to claim that there are 2 parks. there was the same kind of discussion also with the relationships grouping several natural=wood and whose relationship is used to put the tag name I find also strange it's perfect to have parking_space camping_pitch and that it would be arbitrary to call it X:part or any other sufixe instead of inventing a new one for each value _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
