On 17 February 2010 17:19, Andrew Laughton <laughton.and...@gmail.com> wrote: > The point being if someone wanted to search for the nearest effluent > dump, it would be much easier to search for a single tag, not multiple > tags.
Which relies on the assumption of no pre-processing. You can potentially make the same argument for a lot of tags, like is_in, that doesn't make it the best reason for doing something. Using the is_in example things moved onto admin boundary relations to describe this information, instead of tagging every single node, way and relation inside an admin boundary with the exact same information over and over again. Thanks to pre-processing we don't need to do this to know what admin boundaries an object is inside of. > Any effluent dump may also have a waste oil dump / normal rubbish dump > nearby as well, making the tags a bit messy and hard to search for. > "amenity=waste_disposal" starts to become ambiguous if there is no > "waste" tag to go with it. I have seen a lot of effulent dump points for caravans that are on their own, the other types of waste are usually handled by a recycling centre, and tagging what types of waste those centres will handle is probably useful as well: http://www.moretonbay.qld.gov.au/living.aspx?id=846 > In my opinion it would be a bit tidier without the waste tag, and have > extra "amenity" tag options. Yes and look at how many amenity tags there are, and growing, I think a little grouping wouldn't hurt things. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
