sent from a phone
> On 18. Apr 2020, at 00:08, António Madeira <antoniomade...@gmx.com> wrote: > > I know there are many ref tags that don't follow this procedure, but if this > is useful why not starting to adopt it for some schemes like this one? because it leads to key bloat. It makes evaluation harder or more complicated if you have to cater for a lot of different keys which all basically are about the same thing: the ref that an operator has assigned to it > It would turn the entire scheme more tight and organized, with a more logical > structured "tree". it makes it much more tedious to type in, because it renders autocompletion less efficient. I hate to type long keys because they all start the same, particularly on mobile devices. It also makes things harder for preset development, it’s not something that could not be solved, but everybody with database columns for keys will hate a schema like this. > Anyway, this will obviously have some resistance, but I think it is well > worth to debate about it. > > >> >>> >>> heritage:xxx:criteria=* - This tag is for the classification criteria used >>> by the xxx operator. It changes the previous xxx:criteria=* >>> heritage:xxx:inscription_date=* - This tag is used for the date the >>> heritage was officially registered by xxx operator. It changes the previous >>> xxx:inscription_date=* >> >> >> same comment as above for ref. >> >> >>> >>> heritage:xxx:designation_title=* - This tag is used for the heritage title >>> (international or national). This is new and is an attempt to circumvent >>> the use of protection_title=* which is wrong in this context. >> >> >> why is protection title "wrong"? > > Show Quoted Content >> >>> >>> heritage:xxx:criteria=* - This tag is for the classification criteria used >>> by the xxx operator. It changes the previous xxx:criteria=* >>> heritage:xxx:inscription_date=* - This tag is used for the date the >>> heritage was officially registered by xxx operator. It changes the previous >>> xxx:inscription_date=* >> >> >> same comment as above for ref. >> >> >>> >>> heritage:xxx:designation_title=* - This tag is used for the heritage title >>> (international or national). This is new and is an attempt to circumvent >>> the use of protection_title=* which is wrong in this context. >> >> >> why is protection title "wrong"? >> >> As discussed in this thread before, the protection title tag was created for >> natural areas. Unless an heritage site coincides with a natural protected >> area, it's not correct to use that tag. Unless we extend its scope for this >> scheme. >> > > As discussed in this thread before, the protection title tag was created for > natural areas. Unless an heritage site coincides with a natural protected > area, it's not correct to use that tag. Unless we extend its scope for this > scheme. > heritage sites are already within the scheme, this was introduced with the protected area proposal and class 22 already covers heritage protection https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#Social-protected-area Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
