2009/6/18 Alan Millar <a...@bolis.com>: >> There's a 1:1 correspondence between the value of amenity= and the >> value of canvec:value_definition= so one of them should be removed. >> There's a 1:1 correspondence between the value of canvec:entity= and >> the value of canvec:entity_definition= so one of them should be >> removed. > > I have not looked at the CanVec data, but if there is a 1:1 correspondence
I suggest you do. > there, you're lucky. Duh.. one is derived from the other. In fact one is a definition of the meaning of the other one. > I have looked at the USGS Geonames and TIGER data, > and there is NOT a 1:1 map with accepted OSM tags. Sure, you could (for > example) force something to be amenity=hotel, even if the accepted tag is > tourism=hotel, but that's a cheap hack, not consistent data. Whether your converter's rule says canvec:type=X -> amenity=school canvec:type=Y-> tourism=hotel, rating=3 stars or they're both amenities doesn't really make a difference, does it. It's still a clear correspondence between tagsets. If you had read the message to which you were responding though you would notice I'm not suggesting the canvec tag be removed, from which the osm tag was derived, just the second canvec tag that contains a textual, english language definition of the first tag. On *every* object that uses the tag, the exact same two-three english sentences (see the prime numbers example) Cheers _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
