On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 16:36, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@tutanota.com> wrote:
> > > > 27 Sep 2019, 15:22 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 13:46, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@tutanota.com> > wrote: > > 27 Sep 2019, 13:52 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > The status for that is "in use," which makes it a little questionable. > > Why? Such tags are perfectly fine to be used. > So are tags such as fipjevye=snalkagi. Anything goes. However, some tags are viewed by some people as undesirable. It seems to me that the people with strong objections to a particular tag on the grounds that it didn't go through an approval process also resort to "anything goes" when it suits them (but I may be misremembering). In general I'm more persuaded by "these are the good reasons why this tag should not be used" than "there are no good reasons why that tag should be used" and even less so by "it's not been approved" or "it's not used much." But I mentioned the status of building:use to try to anticipate objections. > But building:use gives no idea what the building looks like, and there are > many buildings with > distinct styles. > > That is role of building tag. > That's my opinion too. But others have voiced strong disagreement within the last week or so. I'm merely offering explanations why I disagree with them. Although some people strongly object to building=church (or anything else other than building=yes|no) they're widely used; don't do any harm (at least on standard carto) as any value other than "no" renders; add useful information to the data; and, above all, fipjevye=snalkag. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
