On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Andy Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Ah, I see the problem. You are taking a tag away from it's context, > > and then complaining that the tag has no context on its own. Only part > > of your argument is based around conflicts, but the rest seems to be > > context. > > > > How do I tell that name="The Duke's Head" refers to the name of a pub? > > I don't feel the need for amenity:pub:name= and highway:primary:name= > > in order to solve this issue. Instead, I examine the context of the > > original tag, and find that it is the name of a pub. > > Because the name tag is always the name of an object, regardless of > what that object is (the amenity=pub tells you what sort of object it > is in this case). It is clear to everybody that a name tag is going > to tell you the name of something without having to know anything else > about it. > > It is not clear to anybody outside a very specific community what > a tag called "french" is likely to mean.
Maybe "french" is a bad choice, and is colouring the discussion too much. I don't think this choice of tag warrants namespaces though. I look at the proposed "climbing:rock=limestone" and wonder to what possible information the 'climbing' conveys, other than needless typing. Surely it's just rock=limestone? Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk