Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

On 06/12/2018 20:49, Mark Wagner wrote: On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:54:44 +0100 Rory McCann wrote: natural=tree? natural=petrified_tree ? "Tree" is misleading. "natural=petrified_tree" would be good, except it gets zero hits in TagInfo. Nothing wrong with being the first use of a tag. *

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

W dniu 07.12.2018 o 12:23, Christoph Hormann pisze: > The changes i refer to with my comment are in particular the > inflationary addition of new POI symbols many of which have been chosen > without considering the applicability to represent the feature type in > question across different

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

On Friday 07 December 2018, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > We have however many other tags where OSM-Carto recently added or > > changed rendering in ways that provide mapping incentives agaist > > the established meaning of the tags. > > Can you link issues opened on issue tracker that > report

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Le 7 décembre 2018 08:24:33 GMT+01:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit : >On 07/12/18 16:09, Yves wrote: >> >> Le 6 décembre 2018 23:05:48 GMT+01:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> >a écrit : >>> On 07/12/18 06:49, Mark Wagner wrote: On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:54:44 +0100 Rory McCann

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

On 07/12/18 16:09, Yves wrote: Le 6 décembre 2018 23:05:48 GMT+01:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit : On 07/12/18 06:49, Mark Wagner wrote: On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:54:44 +0100 Rory McCann wrote: On 06/12/2018 08:38, Mark Wagner wrote: Yellowstone National Park has attracted a fair

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Le 6 décembre 2018 23:05:48 GMT+01:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit : >On 07/12/18 06:49, Mark Wagner wrote: >> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:54:44 +0100 >> Rory McCann wrote: >> >>> On 06/12/2018 08:38, Mark Wagner wrote: Yellowstone National Park has attracted a fair few bare

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

7 Dec 2018, 02:13 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > natural=rock and rock=petrified_wood could also work well. I wonder if > there is already a way to classify types of rock formations, eg > limestone, granite, basalt? > material tag? https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=material

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

5 Dec 2018, 11:40 by o...@imagico.de: > We have however many other tags where OSM-Carto recently added or > changed rendering in ways that provide mapping incentives agaist the > established meaning of the tags.  > Can you link issues opened on issue tracker that report this serious problems?

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

5 Dec 2018, 07:29 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > Is it necessary to use tourism=attraction as the only tag for certain > features? > No, it is never, ever OK. And JOSM validator complains about such tagging. > Either we need to add an icon or outline, or we can remove this> from the > list

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

6. Dec 2018 20:49 by mark+...@carnildo.com : > On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:54:44 +0100 > Rory McCann <> r...@technomancy.org > > wrote: > >> On 06/12/2018 08:38, Mark Wagner wrote: >> > Yellowstone National Park has attracted a fair few bare

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

On 06/12/2018 08:38, Mark Wagner wrote: Yellowstone National Park has attracted a fair few bare "tourism=attraction" objects. How would you tag the following: * Boiling River and Firehole Swimming Area, naturally-heated stretches of river that are popular for swimming. natural=water +

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

W dniu 06.12.2018 o 10:47, Christoph Hormann pisze: > On Thursday 06 December 2018, Yves wrote: >> tourism=attraction can be added to a lot of features indeed, that's >> why I think the label rendering in OSM-carto is a good idea because >> you will probably never find a common rendering to

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

On Thursday 06 December 2018, Yves wrote: > tourism=attraction can be added to a lot of features indeed, that's > why I think the label rendering in OSM-carto is a good idea because > you will probably never find a common rendering to encompass this > variety. Your desire for this is somewhat

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

tourism=attraction can be added to a lot of features indeed, that's why I think the label rendering in OSM-carto is a good idea because you will probably never find a common rendering to encompass this variety. But on another topic, where does the idea of 'primary' and 'secondary' tags I read

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:55:11 +0900 Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > do you mean, 1) it is impossible to invent a tag for it which better > > describes its nature, or 2) that nobody has yet invented and > > documented such a tag? > > > > 1) is probably not possible > 2) would be good > I’m just not

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 10:57, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > do you mean, 1) it is impossible to invent a tag for it which better >> describes its nature, or 2) that nobody has yet invented and documented >> such a tag? >> > > 1) is probably not possible > 2) would be good > I’m just not able to

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Am Mi., 5. Dez. 2018 um 14:32 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > Does anyone have a specific example of a place that should be tagged > tourism=attraction but which cannot also be tagged with another feature? do you mean, it is impossible to invent a tag for it which

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

Does anyone have a specific example of a place that should be tagged tourism=attraction but which cannot also be tagged with another feature? On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 9:55 PM Daniel Koć wrote: > W dniu 05.12.2018 o 11:40, Christoph Hormann pisze: > > It would certainly be good to stop rendering it

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

W dniu 05.12.2018 o 11:40, Christoph Hormann pisze: > It would certainly be good to stop rendering it to incentivize mappers > to choose more meaningful tags instead but it also should be said that > this is essentially a case of 'damage done' - the tag is already > meaningless, stopping to

Re: [Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

On Wednesday 05 December 2018, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > [...] > > This is reasonable; many features can be of interest to tourists, and > tourism=attraction doesn't provide much information. Is it an area of > shops? A beach? A theme park? A historic monument? > > However, there is a preset in

[Tagging] Tourism=attraction: feature or secondary tag?

The current wiki page for tourism=attraction states: "A general tourist attraction. This tag may be added to object to indicate that the place is interesting for tourists. Note that tagging just tourism = attraction is not enough - this tag should be used only as addition to main tag describing