True, though I would say:
- It is (presumably) best practice for a key to only mean one thing, rather than requiring a data consumer to inspect other tags to understand the context of the key.
- I think we usually have sub-tags to mean a type of the main tag, rather than to mean some related feature (though I’m sure there are examples of the latter of course!).
- Not all of the feature values are exclusively for features of zoos, so more generic tagging could be useful (e.g., a generic tag for aviaries could be used both in zoos and not in zoos).
- Relying on contextual tagging does seem to make tagging less resilient to mistakes. In this case, a missed tag (
tourism=zoo) changes the meaning of the item but it also makes it difficult for QA/data validators to identify it as a tagging mistake. Whereas for other tags, e.g.,service=drivewaywithouthighway=service, a data validator can see the missed tag as a tagging mistake but still understand what the user was likely trying to tag.
A bit of searching on OT suggests there are a dozens of zoo=petting_zoo\wildlife_park\sarfari_park without the tourism=zoo tag for example. Though it is worth noting that most of those examples are for petting zoos and perhaps a petting zoo can be located inside a larger feature that isn’t a zoo (such as a farm) so that’s less clear (even if not the documented way of tagging petting zoos).
Thanks, I must admit I missed that. But that sort of usage does seem a bit odd to me. All zoos, by their nature, include animals in some form of enclosure, surely?
OT stats:
tourism=zoo + zoo=enclosure: 506
tourism!=* + zoo=enclosure: 921
Also, worth noting that the majority of instances of this tagging is in just one country (Germany with 59% of instances).
Thanks, yes I’m sure butterfly house is probably very UK specific so something more generic would be useful instead!