"Cruisy" as amenity feature in the 1990s

[lukeave]

Old data entry rule:
"IF a location has (cruisy) in the description it is handled differently. In that case the location gets a type of cruisy area BUT NOT an amenity. Only cruising areas listed at the end of a city should have the AMENITY of cruising area."

We need to think about whether the rule still applies to later guides. In prior years, the "type" variable could have many values per entry as a single entry could be both a bar and a restaurant. It was also subjective to whoever did the data transcription. The types become uniquely defined categories in the later guides themselves, making the type column in the data a "single select" field instead of a "multiple select" field. In other words, an entry cannot be listed under "Bars" and "Cruisy Areas" at the same time.

If the location has "(cruisy)" in the description, it becomes a methodological decision whether we should consider this information an amenity feature. Although often in parenthesis, it does not show up in the guide's "Key to Code" like other features considered amenities.

[lukeave]

A suggestion: flipping the original rule could help fix the problem:

If a location has "cruisy" or "cruise" in the description, the location would get an amenity of "(Cruisy)", but not a type. If a location is listed at the end of a city under "Cruising Areas", then it gets a type -- just like locations listed under "Bars & Nightclubs" get a type of "Bars & Nightclubs".

Early guides did not separate locations by type, but following this new logic, we'd only assign the type of "Cruising Areas" to locations listed under "Cruising Areas" at the end of a city to keep it consistent throughout the years.