Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:19 AM, greg...@arenius.com wrote: What do people think? I know that there are a bazillion amenity tags already in use but I think that going forward a better organized system will be worth the effort of implementing it. I think the whole wiki page needs reorganization. I would suggest to move the full list of tags into subpages (one for landuse, one for amenity, etc) and keep on Map Features only the top 5 or 10 most popular tags of each category. Doing this, the wiki page is much smaller but still gives a good idea of each category. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
On 24/06/2009 10:27, Pieren wrote: I think the whole wiki page needs reorganization. I would suggest to move the full list of tags into subpages (one for landuse, one for amenity, etc) and keep on Map Features only the top 5 or 10 most popular tags of each category. Doing this, the wiki page is much smaller but still gives a good idea of each category. Please don't do that! If you're not sure what category something comes under, it's really hard to find if it is on a page organised by category. If I want a windmill, say, I can search for windmill as things stand without having to know it is in man_made. Having everything on one page is so much easier as a reference. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
On 24/06/2009 00:43, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, greg...@arenius.com wrote: What do people think? I think why bother. Clearly what we have is chaotic, but any system you can think of will become chaotic sooner or later with people (ab)using it to their heart's content, so what's the big deal. +1 If you're not sure what something comes under it's easy enough to look it up, and in most cases presets know about it anyway. Personally I think these categorizations have no value anyway, and if I were designing it from scratch, I'd have just a type for each item and properties which are the tags. But I'm not, and like the many proposals that surface on this list to rearrange everything, it may be a bit neater but it is too much of an upheaval for the minimal gain. It's not as if these are any more than internal identifiers. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
--- On Wed, 24/6/09, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Please don't do that! If you're not sure what category something comes under, it's really hard to find if it is on a page organised by category. If I want a windmill, say, I can search for windmill as things stand without having to know it is in man_made. Having everything on one page is so much easier as a reference. As someone relatively new to OSM I couldn't agree more, it's hard enough trying to fit some squarish pegs into round holes when it comes to cultural/language differences, but being able to search everything on a single page can't be understated as to how useful this is. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
David Earl wrote: On 24/06/2009 00:43, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, greg...@arenius.com wrote: What do people think? I think why bother. Clearly what we have is chaotic, but any system you can think of will become chaotic sooner or later with people (ab)using it to their heart's content, so what's the big deal. +1 If you're not sure what something comes under it's easy enough to look it up, and in most cases presets know about it anyway. Personally I think these categorizations have no value anyway, and if I were designing it from scratch, I'd have just a type for each item and A reason to do better categorizations would be to ease conversion to mobile (or online) routeplanners, which already have some sort of categorization in amenities. If you don't do that in OSM than you need a conversion for that. Not saying that this is a compelling argument to do categories in OSM, but it does have a value. Personally I'm also more inclined to why bother. Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
A better exercise, I think, would be to create an A4 sized cheatsheet of common POIs and how they should generally be tagged - something that people can print out and laminate to either use themselves or distribute at mapping parties that could be used as an aid for when one is out mapping and wants to tag-as-you-go. I'm not sure but I think someone else may have suggested this previously. k. On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: David Earl wrote: On 24/06/2009 00:43, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, greg...@arenius.com wrote: What do people think? I think why bother. Clearly what we have is chaotic, but any system you can think of will become chaotic sooner or later with people (ab)using it to their heart's content, so what's the big deal. +1 If you're not sure what something comes under it's easy enough to look it up, and in most cases presets know about it anyway. Personally I think these categorizations have no value anyway, and if I were designing it from scratch, I'd have just a type for each item and A reason to do better categorizations would be to ease conversion to mobile (or online) routeplanners, which already have some sort of categorization in amenities. If you don't do that in OSM than you need a conversion for that. Not saying that this is a compelling argument to do categories in OSM, but it does have a value. Personally I'm also more inclined to why bother. Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- http://short.ie/savenenaghhospital/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
Pieren wrote: On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:19 AM, greg...@arenius.com wrote: What do people think? I know that there are a bazillion amenity tags already in use but I think that going forward a better organized system will be worth the effort of implementing it. I think the whole wiki page needs reorganization. I would suggest to move the full list of tags into subpages (one for landuse, one for amenity, etc) and keep on "Map Features" only the top 5 or 10 most popular tags of each category. Doing this, the wiki page is much smaller but still gives a good idea of each category. Pieren Please don't break up the map features. It is vital for beginners to have one place to turn to to find all the common tags. Cheers Chris ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Ken Guestk...@linux.ie wrote: A better exercise, I think, would be to create an A4 sized cheatsheet of common POIs and how they should generally be tagged - something that people can print out and laminate to either use themselves or distribute at mapping parties that could be used as an aid for when one is out mapping and wants to tag-as-you-go. I'm not sure but I think someone else may have suggested this previously. I think it has, but we don't seem to have such a thing, so talk is cheap. Maybe you'd like to actually create such a sheet? It would be a great contribution. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
Hi, I quite like the idea. For people, who think about using OSM data in their project, clarity of tag structure might be an important issue. I think why bother. Clearly what we have is chaotic, but any system you can think of will become chaotic sooner or later with people (ab)using it to their heart's content, so what's the big deal. The question is whether to choose chaos or less chaos. I think it's still a significant difference. Are there any serious reasons why not to bother? Technically I support the idea of key named spiritual, because there are more tags to fit in such group: wayside cross, small shrine, ... Regards, Radomir Cernoch 2009/6/24 greg...@arenius.com: The amenity key is currently used for so many different things that it has no meaning. It has become a catch all category for everything that doesn't have a place elsewhere. I'm proposing breaking it up into more keys to help make things more organized. Proposed keys: *Amenity *Death *Education *Entertainment *Financial *Government *Healthcare *Sustenance *Transportation *Waste With their tags: Amenity: *BBQ *Bench *Drinking_fountain *Emergency_Telephone *Fountain *Shelter *Telephone *Toilet Death: *Graveyard *Crematorium Maybe also things like tombs, catacombs, mortuaries, funeral homes, etc. Could probably also replace landuse=cemetary Education: *School *College *Library *University Entertainment: *Arts_centre *Brothel *Cinema *Nightclub *Theatre *Studio Financial: *ATM *Bank *Bureau_de_change Maybe also check cashing, brokerages, stock exchanges, commodity exchanges, etc Government: *Baby_hatch *Courthouse *Embassy *Fire_station *Police_station *Post_office *Post_box *Public_building *Prison *Townhall I think a lot of other types government buildings could be added here as well. Healthcare: *Dentist *Doctor *Hospital *Pharmacy *Veterinary This key has been proposed and passed a vote (15-4) but no further work has been done with it because the proposer doesn't have time. I'd move it along but I think it should be part of a larger reorganization of amenity. There are a lot of other tags that could be put in this category so I think its an especially important one. Sustenance: *Biergarten *Cafe *Fast_food *Food_court *Pub *Restaurant Transportation: *Bicycle_parking *Bicycle_rental *Bus_station *Car_rental *Car_sharing *Ferry_terminal *Fuel *Parking *Taxi_stands I think there has been discussion about a key somewhat like this but nothing has been officially proposed. Waste: *Recycling *Waste_basket *Waste_disposal Maybe also things like dumps, recycling baskets, etc. That leaves us with a few stray tags which I think can be better placed elsewhere. Hunting_stand can go in leisure. Marketplace can go in landuse. Signpost can go in the proposed information key. Vending_machine can go in the shop key, or failing that, its own key. Which leaves place_of_worship. Maybe in a new spiritual key with things like holy_site, etc? It really doesn't fit well in amenity though. I've copied this proposal into the wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Amenity_Reoganization which I'll be working on improving. What do people think? I know that there are a bazillion amenity tags already in use but I think that going forward a better organized system will be worth the effort of implementing it. Cheers, Greg ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Radomir Cernoch +44 750 708 8293 / +420 607 282 031 Email, Jabber: radomir.cern...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
On 24/06/2009 11:39, Radomír Černoch wrote: The question is whether to choose chaos or less chaos. I think it's still a significant difference. Are there any serious reasons why not to bother? Yes, because it means changing all the editors, all the renderers and other consumers and relearning what everything is called. When we could be out there productively mapping instead. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:32 AM, David Earlda...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Please don't do that! If you're not sure what category something comes under, it's really hard to find if it is on a page organised by category. If I want a windmill, say, I can search for windmill as things stand without having to know it is in man_made. Having everything on one page is so much easier as a reference. David When the wiki pages are well structured (and named), you can use the search function, type windmill and you find the right page. I simply cannot imagine how far the Map Features page will be extended to list all possible amenities, sports, shops, man_made, etc. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
Pieren Pieren wrote: I think the whole wiki page needs to be taken outside and shot. Arguing over the presentation on the wiki isn't really the issue. What the tags are, and how they're documented, are two separate things. But like Ævar says, talk is cheap, and though many of us feel strongly that MediaWiki is a rubbish solution (even discounting its performance issues) none of us have as yet actually produced any code. Any devs out there looking for a project? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Proposed-Amenity-Reorganization-tp24176224p24182598.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
gregory at arenius.com writes: Death: *Graveyard *Crematorium I think there is some difference between a graveyard and a churchyard, so the latter should also be a tag. Education: *School *College *Library *University Also need nursery/preschool. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
--- On Wed, 24/6/09, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: When the wiki pages are well structured (and named), you can use the search function, type windmill and you find the right page. I simply cannot imagine how far the Map Features page will be extended to list all possible amenities, sports, shops, man_made, etc. That example works for easy types, but take say fords, these are commonly (only) known for all my life as cause ways or dips, and what you are searching for, by looking down the list is something that looks close enough or identical but not known by the same name. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote: Arguing over the presentation on the wiki isn't really the issue. What the tags are, and how they're documented, are two separate things. But like Ævar says, talk is cheap, and though many of us feel strongly that MediaWiki is a rubbish solution (even discounting its performance issues) none of us have as yet actually produced any code. Any devs out there looking for a project? I'm not talking about the whole wiki, just the Map Features page. This page presents all tags at same level of importance, from the highway=residential instanciated million times to highway=bus_guideway or railway=monorail instanciated ergh.. (don't know.. 3 times ?). I don't understand people saying it is not possible with the search function. How do they use wikipedia ? they have a single page listing all articles listed in alphabetic order ? About synonyms, you can also improve the descriptions to include these terms or use the REDIRECT feature. I also don't like the position why bother, it's chaotic, let them continue. I'm sure we can improve this page a bit more than sort the amenities. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
Pieren wrote: I'm not talking about the whole wiki, just the Map Features page. As was I. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Proposed-Amenity-Reorganization-tp24176224p24183557.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
Pieren schrieb: I would suggest to move the full list of tags into subpages (one for landuse, one for amenity, etc) and keep on Map Features only the top 5 or 10 most popular tags of each category. Doing this, the wiki page is much smaller but still gives a good idea of each category. Less extreme solution: Only move the images for examples and rendering (and element) to the subpages, shorten the text, so it should fit in to one line (at most browsers ;) ) highway=road: A road of unknown classification, temporary tagging. is enough for first search A road of unknown classification. This is intended as a temporary tag to mark a road until it has been properly surveyed. Once it has been surveyed, the classification should be updated to the appropriate value. should be on the subpage. If reorganisated: One should find a solution for easier overview about different language. At now an editor of any language only see his language while editing, because english master version is found at template 1 and the foreign language is defined at template 2 calling template 1, but without seeing its content. It may avoid differences between languages, if an editor of a language can compare his changes to the english version and others while editing. Might be a solution would be: an highway=road-template contains all languages The e.g. german highway-subpage collects - german part from highway=road - german part from highway=... And the (german) highway=road-subpage only collect its template at now descriptions on highway and highway=road may differ, because highway=road don't use global templates ... Heiko Mueck Jacobs ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:53:27 +0200 (CEST), Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: A reason to do better categorizations would be to ease conversion to mobile (or online) routeplanners, which already have some sort of categorization in amenities. Please give examples here. Are you sure there is just ONE way to categorize and that not every second application(not just routeplanner) uses another way to categorize things? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
Pieren wrote: On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote: Arguing over the presentation on the wiki isn't really the issue. What the tags are, and how they're documented, are two separate things. But like Ævar says, talk is cheap, and though many of us feel strongly that MediaWiki is a rubbish solution (even discounting its performance issues) none of us have as yet actually produced any code. Any devs out there looking for a project? I'm not talking about the whole wiki, just the Map Features page. This page presents all tags at same level of importance, from the highway=residential instanciated million times to highway=bus_guideway or railway=monorail instanciated ergh.. (don't know.. 3 times ?). I don't understand people saying it is not possible with the search function. How do they use wikipedia ? they have a single page listing all articles listed in alphabetic order ? The nice part about the map_features page is that there is one overview and for a lot of tags there is even a nice picture to see what real-world example fits it. Moving away from that would mean lots of searching in pages with tags that may or may not fit your needs, and using the search with the wrong search key will give you nothing usefull, while browsing through a list will result in finding the correct key. Of course this could be fixed by i.e. making a category for each main key type (highway, waterway, natural, amenity, etc.) and using the category page for the overview of values associated with the key, but a standard wiki-generated category page only lists pages and does not have the information which is now in the table of the map features page. And what is importance here? Don't confuse abundance of use with importance. A bus lane is certainly not used as much as a primary road, but it is not less important. IMHO the map_features page functions as it should: a list of documented features. Regards, Marten About synonyms, you can also improve the descriptions to include these terms or use the REDIRECT feature. I also don't like the position why bother, it's chaotic, let them continue. I'm sure we can improve this page a bit more than sort the amenities. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
greg...@arenius.com schrieb: The amenity key is currently used for so many different things that it has no meaning. Indeed. But that's no problem, because the key amenity don't bear some information of an object. You can waive amenity and you may only say school=yes without loss of information. Sometimes the key also has some worth for information to distinguish between landuse=residential, highway=residential but for amenity the value bears information, not the key, so changing the keys isn't necessary. It has become a catch all category for everything that doesn't have a place elsewhere. Yes I'm proposing breaking it up into more keys to help make things more organized. Organization is only needed for Map Features and subpages, so it is good enough to sort them in Map-Features in *Amenity *Death *Education *Entertainment *Financial *Government *Healthcare *Sustenance *Transportation *Waste or something like this BEFORE sorting them alphabetically With their tags: Amenity: *BBQ *Bench ... ... and if one value can't be allocated to one group no allocation war is needed at mailing list ;-) only put it double in both parts ;-) Hunting_stand can go in leisure. Might be we are flexible enough to put some leisures to amenity-section of Map Features and vice versa if it makes sense, but changing the key isn't neccesary for my opinion Heiko Mueck Jacobs ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
I have commented on several points that have been raised. *Death To start with that is the wrong word to be using. I am not sure what you should use. Imagine saying to the wife 'Just need to go to the funeral to bury dad so I will search OSM, category Death then search for the funeral homes' How about rather than re-naming amenity names into Categories maybe we need a new tag called AmenityCategory=Entertainment etc. This would allow for things that transcend multiple categories to be be tagged with both categories. On Organising the page. I think leave it as one page. It is fairly easy to use and it does not improve things by splitting it up. You will just end up with loads of pages which take up more bandwidth and more space in the wiki. Cheat Sheet. I asked for what people want on a cheat sheet and no one replied to me. I am willing to make one up but as I have never been to a mapping party I don't know what you want on there. Jack Stringer ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
A reason to do better categorizations would be to ease conversion to mobile (or online) routeplanners, which already have some sort of categorization in amenities. Please give examples here. Are you sure there is just ONE way to categorize and that not every second application(not just routeplanner) uses another way to categorize things? Other applications already have their own translation tables if they are taking OSM data. I was just looking at osm2navit recently for this very issue, because nodes marked as amenity=school were rendering, but areas were not. It will be the same with all the rest of the other software. I think cleaning up the categorization is a good idea, but this isn't a good justification for it. - Alan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
The amenity key is currently used for so many different things that it has no meaning. It has become a catch all category for everything that doesn't have a place elsewhere. I'm proposing breaking it up into more keys to help make things more organized. Proposed keys: *Amenity *Death *Education *Entertainment *Financial *Government *Healthcare *Sustenance *Transportation *Waste With their tags: Amenity: *BBQ *Bench *Drinking_fountain *Emergency_Telephone *Fountain *Shelter *Telephone *Toilet Death: *Graveyard *Crematorium Maybe also things like tombs, catacombs, mortuaries, funeral homes, etc. Could probably also replace landuse=cemetary Education: *School *College *Library *University Entertainment: *Arts_centre *Brothel *Cinema *Nightclub *Theatre *Studio Financial: *ATM *Bank *Bureau_de_change Maybe also check cashing, brokerages, stock exchanges, commodity exchanges, etc Government: *Baby_hatch *Courthouse *Embassy *Fire_station *Police_station *Post_office *Post_box *Public_building *Prison *Townhall I think a lot of other types government buildings could be added here as well. Healthcare: *Dentist *Doctor *Hospital *Pharmacy *Veterinary This key has been proposed and passed a vote (15-4) but no further work has been done with it because the proposer doesn't have time. I'd move it along but I think it should be part of a larger reorganization of amenity. There are a lot of other tags that could be put in this category so I think its an especially important one. Sustenance: *Biergarten *Cafe *Fast_food *Food_court *Pub *Restaurant Transportation: *Bicycle_parking *Bicycle_rental *Bus_station *Car_rental *Car_sharing *Ferry_terminal *Fuel *Parking *Taxi_stands I think there has been discussion about a key somewhat like this but nothing has been officially proposed. Waste: *Recycling *Waste_basket *Waste_disposal Maybe also things like dumps, recycling baskets, etc. That leaves us with a few stray tags which I think can be better placed elsewhere. Hunting_stand can go in leisure. Marketplace can go in landuse. Signpost can go in the proposed information key. Vending_machine can go in the shop key, or failing that, its own key. Which leaves place_of_worship. Maybe in a new spiritual key with things like holy_site, etc? It really doesn't fit well in amenity though. I've copied this proposal into the wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Amenity_Reoganization which I'll be working on improving. What do people think? I know that there are a bazillion amenity tags already in use but I think that going forward a better organized system will be worth the effort of implementing it. Cheers, Greg ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
Hi, greg...@arenius.com wrote: What do people think? I think why bother. Clearly what we have is chaotic, but any system you can think of will become chaotic sooner or later with people (ab)using it to their heart's content, so what's the big deal. If you're so intent on giving structure to the whole thing then you should perhaps use the gpsdrive-inspired tagging scheme that some people in Germany use. They do things like poi=shopping.machine.cigarette poi=education.school.secondary poi=religion.church.catholic poi=shopping.rental.library and so on. I'm sure it is documented somewhere but I'm not sure where. I think it is a bit crazy but at least it can co-exist peacefully with what we already have (an object can be tagged according to both schemes at the same time). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Amenity Reorganization
Am Mittwoch 24 Juni 2009 schrieb Frederik Ramm: Hi, greg...@arenius.com wrote: What do people think? you are not the first to suggest something like that ;-) I also think that a change would be fine, but my approach was a little bit different. anyway, I'm using my scheme in my application and try to convert from the chaotic osm-style when importing the data. I think why bother. Clearly what we have is chaotic, but any system you can think of will become chaotic sooner or later with people (ab)using it to their heart's content, so what's the big deal. abuse, even unintended, will always be a problem diluting the meaning and usage of the tags. but this can be reduces to a minimum, if the whole thing would be well defined. but enough said, you know my point of view ;-) If you're so intent on giving structure to the whole thing then you should perhaps use the gpsdrive-inspired tagging scheme that some people in Germany use. They do things like poi=shopping.machine.cigarette poi=education.school.secondary poi=religion.church.catholic poi=shopping.rental.library thanks for referencing this :-) and so on. I'm sure it is documented somewhere but I'm not sure where. I think it is a bit crazy but at least it can co-exist peacefully with what we already have (an object can be tagged according to both schemes at the same time). a short overview can be found in the osm svn in /applications/share/map-icons/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
