1

We currently have:

In GIS, Fields, also known as attributes, contain information about features.

Do we need both the and tags?

3

A case could be made to separate "fields" questions into those about field values (for which there is no tag), and those about field properties.

However, in general, I think we should be aiming for fewer rather than more tags, and looking for places where existing tags can be rationalized, so a simple tagging scheme where questions involving field values and field properties both get tagged as is more appealing to me than proposing disambiguation.

I suggest that we make a synonym of for our tagging purposes.


Furthermore, as commented by @AndreSilva and I think supported by a comment from @Midavalo, I propose that tags , and all be made synonyms of a new composite tag .

  • 1
    I think you're right. And possibly a tag for "field values" could use the "attributes" tag instead – Midavalo Oct 24 '18 at 3:40
  • 1
    Maybe fields should be synonymized into attributes as well. – Andre Silva Oct 24 '18 at 14:29
  • Maybe we should just roll up fields, attributes, field-properties and attribute-tables into a fields-attributes composite tag? – PolyGeo Oct 24 '18 at 21:26
  • I think [attribute-table] is a different subject as explained by @Midavalo in gis.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4824/…. Apart from that, I like the idea of having [fields-attributes] as a composite tag for fields, field-properties and attributes. – Andre Silva Oct 25 '18 at 15:35
  • Two tags in this space is better than four but I do think the fields/field-properties/attributes and attribute-tables topic spaces are close enough for the level of granularity that we often seek to achieve here. – PolyGeo Oct 25 '18 at 22:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .