sent from a phone
> On 26 Apr 2024, at 14:34, Daniel Evans <daniel.fred.ev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks. I have been partly lost between some competing (but perhaps poorly > supported) proposals which suggested more focus on making the `industrial=` > tag more detailed. I'll give some thought to what a sequence of `works:x` > tags might look like. yes, I am aware of these proposals, and frankly I can also not tell which ideas have more support, but I think we should generally aim to keep the meaning of keys consistent, because it makes life for everyone easier when there is some kind of logical structure behind and not just individual meaning for key-value pairs, e.g. the distinction of features and properties. We can have man_made=bridge (feature) as an object and highway=* with bridge=yes additionally, without violating the one feature one element rule, because the bridge=yes on the highway isn’t a bridge, it is a property of the highway that it is on a bridge. Several bridge=yes highways can be on the same one bridge, because you cannot count bridges by counting bridge attributes. Similarly counting landuse polygons does not make sense, because landuse is a property of the land (speaking about built up landuse and military which can be both, here are competing ideas around, e.g. by adding names to landuse polygons, with different meaning e.g. development, or settlement part like quarter, or individual properties and installations, thereby reading the landuse tag as feature tag, personally I don’t think it is a good idea because it limits the detail level of landuse mapping to the scale at which the feature is located, so the bigger it is (like a whole village or residential area, etc.) the likelier it is a problem). _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
