Proposed features/Group restaurants
|Tagging:||to be chosen=*|
|Definition:||split off eating places from amenity and group them under a new tag|
The amenity=* tag is very crowded, we should split the restaurants (used for all kinds of places to eat something) off from it. So create one key with the values we've had in amenity before. That way we can more easy add more values (and the renderer doesn't have to know about all different kinds of eating places). I don't know how to best name the key, maybe some native English speakers can help there.
Seems to be reasonable suggestion. And I think we need not only another group for "eating places", but other groups too. Especial including proposed tags. The only one problem I see in this global change is rewriting old tags. It'll be great if this can be done automatically.--LEAn 14:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- We need some trainees :-D And yes, the same thing should be done with educational stuff. --Bkr 14:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- At the moment I only see amenity=fast_food and amenity=restaurant to split off. May be also amenity=biergarten. What about food=fast_food, food=restaurant? (food=biergarten?) And if there is more than one, tag food=restaurant;biergarten. --Bahnpirat 06:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Gustavf, why would it have to be in the amenity category? Literally, a shop or a fitness center is also an „amenity“. I think we should try to use amenity only for stuff that cannot be categorized somewhere else.
Why not something like
- amenity=gastro which will include all kinds of gastronomy and the type will go into separate and combinable keys.
with this it would be possible to create a restaurant with a connected nightclub. For things like this today you have to create two different objects. --Zottel 19:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree that amenity is getting overloaded. Any value that requires a secondary tag for usefulness should be split out. (cuisine in the case of amenity=restaurant). It is simple to provide some continuity by making the new tag name the same as the amenity value, like this
-- StellanL 01:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)