On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Matthias Julius <li...@julius-net.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Erik Johansson <erjo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> ... To meet both problems you can only do this: >>> alcohol=yes >>> coffee=no >>> pastries=yes >>> egg & chips=yes >> >> I like this approach. > > I don't. I don't want to revisit each place each week to see whether > the menu has changed.
If a cafe is an amenity=cafe only if A, B and C, you would have to revisit each week, anyway, to check that it's still A, B and C. My point is that I like the approach of tagging A, B and C, instead. > It would be > foolish to assume that a café in Hongkong looks exactly the same as in > Vienna. Yes...hence why I like the approach of tagging what you mean... > Also, if you only tag the menu instead of categorizing the place you > only put the burden on the consumer of the data. I disagree. If a "cafe" is a concept that's easily defined and internationally consistent, that's great, and telling the consumer there's a "cafe" is great. But if it isn't, then telling the consumer there's a "cafe" puts MORE burden on them to work out what that means, than specifically telling them there's "a place you can get coffee and snacks, and...". > Otherwise you get 10 > icons on the map for each café (coffee, pastries, egg&chips, ...). You don't have to render everything. > Or, > you have to ask your router to guide you to a place where they have > beefsteak, beer and rum if you feel like that. That'd be great! I should mention that I'm not suggesting we completely scrap the amenity=* tag - but if we're finding it hard to agree on a definition of amenity=cafe, that would suggest to me it's not a good tag! Can we agree on a definition for amenity=food_or_drink_outlet, used in combination with the specifics? Much more likely, I think. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
