On 28 May 2015 at 07:28, johnw <jo...@mac.com> wrote: > > On May 16, 2015, at 10:29 PM, pmailkeey . <pmailk...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > Thanks for the post, John. > > > Thanks for reading ^^ > > > How about: > > Forest=natural ? > > > isn’t that natural=wood? >
I don't know the difference between a wood and a forest! > > > or forest=man_made ? [=plantation or somesuch term for a human-planted > forest]. > > > A forest is a man-altered area, so i believe “forest” already implies > man-used. But it is not man_made (as a building is), as the forest is not a > non-building structure. > Is Amazon rain forest man-affected? > > > landuse=school is, to the map, the same as > area=school which is the same as > > > Area is the name for a type of unit in the database (node, way, area) so > that sounds confusing. so how about using land=school for your example. > I think your 'confusion' is my 'simplification'. We're talking about an area - because that's what we're talking about and to mark that area, we use the 'area' function - no matter the eventual purpose of that area. > > "school" or perhaps > school=primary > school=secondary > school=music > > > When I have a facility which encompasses multiple buildings with > different purposes (a music school , a computer school, a sports facility, > etc) and that entire facility is considered a “school” with a singular name > (FooBar university), there has to be some kind of *generic purpose-based > tag* for the area. > Area=school or Area=University. > that is how I see landuse=* . You can reimagine it to have other names, or > other tagging styles, but eventually you will lead yourself to > purpose=education because if you go much narrower, the world is so varied > that the 6 categories you need don’t quite line up with the 6 I need, and > the 12 someone else needs - so to have a single catch all is much more > flexible. Maybe we can agree on some age splits (Pre K-12 , higher) but if > you start going deeper than that - what about combined primary-secondary? > what about combined secondary-high? What about a facility that does K-12 > all on the same campus? making 35 different tags is not helpful to get > taggers tagging and renderers rendering. > > my fictional tag example > > landuse=school [currently amenity=school] > school=k-12 > k-12=secondary;high > religion=buddhist > denomination=honen > Name=FooBar Buddhist Junior & Senior High School > secondary=3 > high_school=3 > > vs > > land=honen_buddhist_secondary_high_school > > This basic hierarchical approach makes it easy to support new users > (unless everything is abstracted away, which it is totally not) and Major > things to be supported by renderers (which are really really conservative) > so we get the best of all worlds for a large amount of things that can fit > easily into some big catch-all category, and still have it refined by the > subtags for further use . > I've no issue with subtags - the main issue is the top-level tag lacking useful information. I've suggested area= instead of amenity= giving area=school, area=building - but then as an area is drawn, the name 'area' becomes unnecessary. school=grounds school=building or building=school grounds=school is perhaps better. > The big point is what does 'landuse' (or 'natural') tell us that's new > information > > > landuse can be read as “purpose” > > Natural can be read as “existing in the world with little to no alteration > by man." > > But how valuable is that to the map-reader ? > > ? bridge=natural would be a case where natural is giving information as it > is not expected bridges to be natural. > > > a natural bridge (like a rock crossing a chasm) sounds cool. > > > Can you find a sports pitch that's not landuse ? there's no need to have > landuse=sports_pitch. And to prove my point, OSM doesn't ! we have instead > leisure=sports_pitch - but it's still landuse but not tagged as such. So > now, it seems OSM tags landuse on its own whims, is inconsistent; is > confusing > > I was about to say what sports_pitch isn't 'leisure' - and then thought: commercial=sports_pitch - e.g. professional football grounds > > A commercial sports facility would have a landuse encompassing all the > pitches, parking lots, and other buildings (leisure=sports_center) that > make up FooBar Sports Center. > > landuse=commercial (i think) > name:foobar Sports Center > sport=multi > > That sounds like a hybrid - a commercial enterprise providing leisure facilities. > I could see there being a landuse=recreation or leisure, but we have > chosen to define a lot of land uses by economic means (commercial, > industrial, residential, agriculture, etc). > > This lack of completeness in landuse (there is no landuse=civic yet, I’m > pushing for it) would help solve some issues, IMO. > > Very specific landuses (landuse=poodle_training_ground) sounds really bad > to me. there are some which should have been sub-keys (like farmland+crop) > but no one was looking that far ahead, such as > > landuse=farmland now instead of landuse=agriculture and agriculture=* > would be better, rather than trying to get rendering support for more > esoteric landuse values (like greenhouse_horticulture). > > > landuse=golf_course > leisure+golf_course > > (bad syntax) [typo!] > > man_made=golf_course > > > OSM tagging is not logical. Does it need to be ? no, but it would help if > it was. > > > I think we are both seeing incompleteness in the tagging schema because it > was made organically, and we both want to complete the sections that our > mind most easily latches onto to make OSM better - but there are good and > bad points to each way, and because of the multitude of people, the only > way to change OSM is one tag at a time - which is frustrating, but the > “grand retagging” schemes are all doomed to failure, even if we are not > opposed to them. > > Please remember syntax is important as well - and I think language > influences this a lot - how we define the world is related to our language. > and OSM is filed with different taggers from different languages. > > "I want to go to that restaurant." would be “I = that restaurant to > gowant. “ (私 は あの レストラン に 行きたい。) in Japanese. Note “want" is stuck on > the verb. > > How Japanese people would make OSM syntax and tag categories would > (probably) be very different - so we will always have this battle. > > Javbw > > And that ties in nicely with my thoughts of removing the words and generating tags and values by symbols ! -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail>
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
