On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 14:43, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > description=* might be a better way of dealing with it (if the name of > the > place doesn't give it away). > > No, that is a bad idea. The "description" field does not provide > consistent data. It is always preferable to use a new, more specific tag. > Description is a very good idea if you think that mapping things down to that level of detail is silly. If it concentrates on 79 flavours of coffee with 200 different toppings but also sells one type of tea, map just drink:coffee=yes. If you want people to know they can also get a bad cup of tea there, with absolutely no choice, the description is fine. The problem with a tag to specify what kind of drink it focuses on is that it breaks when the place focuses on two types of drink. What if there is an incredible variety of teas and coffees but only one flavour of juice? What if there are a lot of coffees and a lot of juices but the tea comes from the cheapest tea bags available that have long passed their shelf life? So now we need a tag that can handle multiple foci. OK, semicolon-delimited list. But now it turns out that they do a lot of types of coffee, a lot of types of tea, five flavours of juice but only one flavour of carbonated drink? So now we need a tag for an intermediate-level of focus. Ah, but some of the coffee is good coffee but some of it is bad coffee. So now we need to tag the individual flavours of coffee so we can specify a quality rating for them. This is getting very silly. Do they sell coffee? Yes or no. Do they sell tea? Yes or no. Do they sell juice? Yes or no. Are there are large range of coffees? Goes in the description. I don't mind micromapping, but I draw the line at picomapping. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
