> On May 20, 2019, at 4:28 PM, marc marc <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Le 21.05.19 à 00:58, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : >> I don’t feel enthusiastic about creating a 4th competing tagging >> standard to go along with camp_site=pitch, camp_site=camp_pitch >> and tourism=camp_pitch > > it's an argument that makes sense. > perhaps in this case, should we start by proposing to depreciate > camp_site=pitch and camp_site=camp_pitch since these are the 2 most > problematic in the logic of tag linking > > both depreciated tags would be temporarily converted into > tourism=camp_pitch but without voting on the choice of the final key, > dividing the problem in two would allow, i hope, to have almost > unanimity on the first step
Is there some overall agreed upon “logic of tag linking” that I’ve missed reading about? Near as I can tell tag formation/structure/logic is all over the place, obviously evolving with time and the opinion(s) of whoever decided they needed to map a particular set of features. If there is someplace I can read up on this “logic of tag linking”? I’d love to have a link. Thanks!
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
