On 2013-07-24 16:54, Ronnie Soak wrote : > > On 24 Jul 2013 16:44, "Janko Mihelić" <jan...@gmail.com > <mailto:jan...@gmail.com>> wrote > > > > > I don't think we should be so inflexible with the "object vs > attribute". It depends on the context. > > > > If you are a data consumer, and are making a list of all addresses > in a town, then the addr:housenumber + addr:street is your object, and > building=yes is your attribute that says "there is a building at this > address". If you are making a list of all buildings, then it's the > other way around. If you are making a list of restaurants, then the > amenity=restaurant is your object, with attributes building and address. > > > > +1 > > Chaos > The "object vs attributes" distinction I speak of is not related to processing the database. OSM is made of colorless tags and you consider them as primary or secondary as you see fit. The point is to avoid being told "you can't say it's *for* leisure because you said it's *a* water". It is finding a characteristic that one can make exclusive and that always exists. Bing exclusive translates in facts the rule that a key must be unique. Having to exist is necessary so that the allowed associated attributes can be enumerated. I think that the best way to do that is to use the physical nature, or assimilated. A building, a water, a highway etc... are characteristics that are exclusive. The point is that a water can be used for leisure but that leisure cannot be uses as water. The point is that water can be used for leisure fishing and swimming or none. Hence water= is OK for a description but leisure= is not. swimming= is an attribute of the water and is compatible with fishing=. If we want to speak of addresses again, their problem being used as objects defined that way starts with countries or streets using no addresses. No problem using them either way you describe.
Cheers, André.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
