On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 6:05 AM John Willis via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > On Jun 4, 2019, at 2:40 PM, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@tutanota.com> wrote: > > Or you will use. > Thanks for handling man_made bridge. I use it a lot. > > The only comment to this idea of “make tags for you to use” is that if you > invent a tagging method for a particular type of object, that you include > similar objects that people would like to map to avoid tag fragmentation. > > If you propose amenity=foobar, I expect you to consider a subtag like > foobar=* or foobar:type=* to be able to define different types of the foobar > people encounter. > > if you are proposing a new tag foo_bar=* to handle x, y, & z, I expect you to > consider l,m,n,o & p as well - even if you don't use them - because trying > to get them “approved” later is very difficult, and people will use incorrect > tags on objects just to complete mapping if that is the case. > > the Tagging mailing list extends the **tagging system**, It’s not just for > solving a single particular mapping issue for an individual. > > Tags can be extended later, but it means convincing people to support a > sinlge tag value they don't care about individually or don't understand the > usefulness of, when it probably would have easily been approved without > objection if it was included in the original proposal. the golf=cart_path > recently comes to mind. > > Javbw >
Agreed on all points. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
