Talk:Proposed features/Properties for Tags

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I like this idea. I'm sure there will be a lot of details to sort out but it seems like as we start to keep track of more and more things with tags that an increase in complexity is inevitable. This seems like a fairly clean solution for keeping tag data together. Beau Gunderson 10:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

the usual way people denote this is with a ":" or an "_"... so footway:surface=something or footway_surface=something. There doesn't seem to be any need to come up with a general rule to me. It can be applied as appropriate when coming up with the individual tags. Randomjunk 15:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything like that tagged in my area before. There is the sport namespace proposal that uses ":". I think it's prudent to have a general rule for 'subtags', so everyone will immediately know how to tag something like that and what such notations mean. That also means it might be easier to read by programs. Of course you can denote tags the way you want, it's just one possible guideline. --Driver2 18:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • also useful for oppsite bicycle-traffic in oneways.
oneway.except.access=bicycle --Cbm 20:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Existing syntactic conventions for tagging

Let's have a stab at documenting what people do already before we invent yet another type of separator. This is the way I see the current usage in the Map features tags and in recent proposals:

It may be the case that the third convention for key linked above might do what you're setting out to do here.

Does your proposal add anything to this set of (admittedly rather scrappily documented and loose) conventions? Some strongly machine-readable and formally well defined for doing metatagging might be possible to write down, but there also exists the question of whether there is the demand for it. --achadwick 20:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This proposal is kind of abandoned. Maybe Proposed features/Tag structures would be interesting for you. I guess your analysis could add to it. It is kind of a mixture of current use and new concepts. But I'm not very good at expressing myself in english, so I'm not sure if this rather complex topic is explained very well. --Driver2 21:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)