On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:08 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/12/15 Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com>: >> Thought I might chip in.... to me this seems to be a matter of trying >> to cram a complex and ambiguous meaning into a single tag. I couldn't >> help but be reminded of the footway/cycleway situation. Is it not >> possible to *tag* what we are trying to indicate (using more than one >> tag if necessary), rather than to create a *definition in the wiki* >> that says what we're trying to indicate (and using a single tag)? > > What is so complex exactly about this situation?
Well, "complexity" is subjective here, so sorry if it seems I'm exaggerating in this situation. But the point I'm making is that, rather than inventing a new tag to encapsulate, e.g. "buildings that are...a restaurant, bar, and gambling location [and] are members only", i.e. "buildings that are A, B, C and D", I personally think tagging A, B, C and D is a more powerful solution, for reasons I've already described. Just an idea - I'm happy to be proven wrong. > Or more to the point, how do any sport or other similar clubs differ > significantly enough to warrant multiple tags? I don't know. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
