2010/8/17 John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com>: > On 17 August 2010 08:53, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> it doesn't change the good point Ulf made: a potential data consumer >> would have to know all school types for a pleasant results. Currently > > That's actually a reason to sub-tag, so they can show a generic icon > instead of needing to constantly update their rendering style sheet > for a new amenity added every other day.
The point was (maybe my message was too long to get this clear) that the same generic icon for schools which do general education in the morning and maybe afternoon to kids AND the same time for all other places that educate all kind of people at all times in all kind of special interests like dancing, driving, swimming, cooking, boxing, playing chess, knitting, sex, etc. is IMHO a bad idea. > You seem to be trying to convince me that subtagging is a good idea > and others are already doing it anyway. yes, the ones that said they were doing it did it the way I promote it: for "real" schools. > You haven't really shown a bad harm, schools will continue to render > as is, these other types of schools are also for learning, so where is > the problem? too generic. Schools will not be distinguishable any more. >> very different. Really. Btw: the OSM Wiki refers to Wikipedia's >> definition of school. > > Wikipedia is a good starting point for research, but no one usually > uses them as a primary source. Well OSM did. The definition of the wiki says in the first line: see wikipedia and a link to: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dschool cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
