Am Di., 8. Jan. 2019 um 08:31 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch>:
> To hypothesize on some of the stuff floating around, obviously there is > a desire to document exactly what kind of stuff a shop sells, so people > have proposed stuff like > > motorcycle:tyres=yes > > service:tyres:car=yes > > service:bicycle:tyres=yes > > a hodgepodge of different ways of tagging and potential for 100s of keys. > > But it could be so simple:simply structure the value space. > > All of the above could be: > > sells=tyres:motorcycle;tyres:cars;tyres:bicycle;tools:cars > > or sells=motorcycle:tyres;car:tyres or sells=car_tyres;motorcycle_tyres or sells=tyres:white:motorcycle... what makes you believe there will be less hodgepodge when we shift more information into the values? Look at your own example, there's a standardization issue with plural (cars) vs. singular (motorcycle, bicycle). Freeform tagging always will bring us also a lot of variants. If we open the sells="long list" box the only thing that will help us maintain a minimum of oversight will probably be the 255 char limit. On the other hand I can already imagine people inventing abbreviation codes to cram more things into the values. I am not a CS person, and if the pros agree that overall, value lists are better than distinct properties, I will happily accept this, but currently I see issues with both. Inconsistent tagging can occur just as well in value lists. Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
