> On May 21, 2019, at 4:07 PM, marc marc <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > Le 21.05.19 à 03:25, Tod Fitch a écrit : >> If there is someplace I can read up on this “logic of tag linking”? > > this logic is massively used and yet I had a hard time finding a link > whose content is limited to a line and an example > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like#Syntactic_conventions_for_new_tags > > There's a common pattern of *iterative refinement* in use in many > tagging schemes, which has the advantage that the scheme can grow over > time to be more and more descriptive whilst still being > backwards-compatible: highway=crossing crossing=uncontrolled > > it would probably be useful to better document it > > Regards, > Marc
Now I am a little confused with respect to objections to camp_site=camp_pitch [1] camp_pitch:*=value [2] For the individual camping places within a tourism=camp_site [3]. This is exactly the same type of thing you just listed: highway=crossing crossing=uncontrolled Except that your crossing=uncontrolled is less flexible unless you start adding more information (controlled/uncontrolled, marked/unmarked, ramp/no ramp, tactile surface). So to be more precise you’d need something like highway=crossing crossing:controlled=yes/no crossing:marked=yes/no etc. But that is an argument for another thread on the mail lists. Getting back to individual camping places within a camp site, for the whole area you tag with tourism=camp_site [4]. Things common to the whole place (address, fees, usage of tents, caravans, etc.) can be tagged on the overall area. Within that area you, for more detail, you can add shared amenities and individual camping pitches. Now for detail within the pitch is there a problem using camp_pitch:*=value? I don’t get it. Would people prefer something like camp_site:pitch:*=value to keep it within the camp_site namespace? If so, then why aren’t we arguing about changing camp site tagging to be along the lines of tourism:camp_site:*=value to keep that within the tourism namespace? One objection I’ve read is for camp sites that have only one place to camp (possible on a back country trail). If the tourism=camp_site has only one place to camp then you can simply put a single node or small polygon with something like: tourism=camp_site camp_site=camp_pitch camp_pitch:type=tent camp_pitch:fire=ring etc. The camp_pitch:* key space is separate from any camp_site:* so you can do detailed pitch specific stuff without worrying about key overlap with any camp_site:*=value tagging. No problem there. Anyway, it seems to me that the proposal was attempting to exactly follow the syntactic conventions for new tags. Slightly off topic, but camp_site=camp_pitch came into existence because the older camp_site=pitch [5] was not well accepted by people on these mailing lists because “pitch” is more associated with fields for sports. Cheers! [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:camp_pitch [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:camp_site [4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site [5] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/camp_site=pitch
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
