[Tagging] historic tagging - graves, tombs
How do you tag single (historic) burial places? I am currently looking for a tagging scheme to structure these kind of places, but am unsure about the wording. My suggestions would be * historic=grave or * historic=tomb for the main tag. Subtags would then be grave=pyramid grave=mausoleum grave=tumulus grave=dolmen grave=war_grave grave=crypt and others that you maybe name and maybe also grave=cenotaph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mausoleum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolmen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_grave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenotaph This could be combined with historic:civilization for better description. What do you say about the wording? Would tomb or grave be suited better? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
To tag obelisks I suggest man_made=obelisk an alternative could be historic=obelisk but some obelisks are actually not old, so historic might not yet be an appropriate tag for them. In combination with historic:civilization and historic:period they could still be clearly distinguished. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelisk example for a not so old Obelisk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Myanmar-Yangon-Independence_Monument_in_Mahabandoola_park.jpg Are there any objections? Otherwise I'll set up a proposal. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging - graves, tombs
On 01/02/11 11:48, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: How do you tag single (historic) burial places? I am currently looking for a tagging scheme to structure these kind of places, but am unsure about the wording. My suggestions would be * historic=grave or * historic=tomb for the main tag. Subtags would then be grave=pyramid grave=mausoleum grave=tumulus grave=dolmen grave=war_grave grave=crypt and others that you maybe name and maybe also grave=cenotaph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mausoleum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolmen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_grave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenotaph This could be combined with historic:civilization for better description. What do you say about the wording? Would tomb or grave be suited better? A grave tends to be a hole dug in the ground to bury one or more bodies, a tomb is more of a structure, so they are not mutually exclusive. I would group pyramid, mausoleum, tumulus, dolmen and crypt as a tomb grave=cenotaph doesn't feel right to me, usually there is not an actual burial there, it is more of a monument. historic=monument,monument=cenotaph seems better to me. I am interested because I am working on a project for the Imperial War Museum improving the data held for memorials including war memorials, cenotaphs, grave memorials, street shrines, rolls of honour, church memorials such as windows etc. We are working on the memorials for 1914-19 war at present. Most of these are historic=memorial to me, but historic=grave is interesting. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging - graves, tombs
2011/2/1 Chris Hill : >> What do you say about the wording? Would tomb or grave be suited better? >> > A grave tends to be a hole dug in the ground to bury one or more bodies, a > tomb is more of a structure, so they are not mutually exclusive. > I would group pyramid, mausoleum, tumulus, dolmen and crypt as a tomb I see. I think that's the one I am after. I have addional complexity as in some tumuli there is several graves (not sure if they are graves, they are not dug into the earth but constructed chambers), with separate entrances, and known under different names (one for the tumulus and one for each burial place). > grave=cenotaph doesn't feel right to me, usually there is not an actual > burial there, it is more of a monument. historic=monument,monument=cenotaph > seems better to me. yes, it's not a place where actually a dead body was put, it is like an "empty grave", though with similar appearance to a real grave. I don't need this at the moment, so I suggest to keep it out from grave/tomb (or better document your suggestion in monument). > I am interested because I am working on a project for the Imperial War > Museum improving the data held for memorials including war memorials, > cenotaphs, grave memorials, street shrines, rolls of honour, church > memorials such as windows etc. We are working on the memorials for 1914-19 > war at present. Most of these are historic=memorial to me, but > historic=grave is interesting. OK, according to your comment I should better suggest historic=tomb to tag bigger structures, right? For single graves we could have historic=grave which would mark the actual place where a person is buried. For bigger structures (collections=field of tombs/graves, distinct part of a cemetary) there could be another tag (maybe what you are after if tagging memorials like 1914-19). I also need this for the whole structure (in my case it's several Etruscan necropoli). Not sure if tagging these places like a cemetary would be appropriate. I remember from Cairo Egypt that people were actually living inside the ancient necropolis, so tagging them like an actual cemetary would be confusing. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging - graves, tombs
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:48 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > grave=pyramid > grave=mausoleum > grave=tumulus > grave=dolmen My (admittedly shallow) understanding was that there was some debate about whether all tumuluses and dolmens were in fact tombs. This is an instance where I think a flatter structure might be safer: historic=tumulus historic=dolmen historic=stone_circle historic=cromlich historic=standing_stones Having "pyramid" a subtag under "tomb" just feels wrong, also. Definitely tomb rather than grave, in any case. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > To tag obelisks I suggest > > man_made=obelisk > > an alternative could be > > historic=obelisk Definitely historic=obelisk, I think. It doesn't really matter if it's *old*, it's still *historical*. (But also consider what the distinction between this and pillars, columns etc might be) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
On 01/02/2011 12:11, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: To tag obelisks I suggest man_made=obelisk an alternative could be historic=obelisk but some obelisks are actually not old, so historic might not yet be an appropriate tag for them. In combination with historic:civilization and historic:period they could still be clearly distinguished. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelisk example for a not so old Obelisk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Myanmar-Yangon-Independence_Monument_in_Mahabandoola_park.jpg Are there any objections? Otherwise I'll set up a proposal. As that Wikipedia article says, its just a particular style/shape of monument or memorial. So I think it would be best tagged as historic=monument or historic=memorial, plus a subtag for obelisk. Maybe something like monument:style=obelisk ? There's quite a few other monument/memorial styles that would be useful to tag, eg statue, fountain, spire etc. Craig ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging - graves, tombs
2011/2/1 Steve Bennett : > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:48 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > My (admittedly shallow) understanding was that there was some debate > about whether all tumuluses and dolmens were in fact tombs. This is an > instance where I think a flatter structure might be safer: I am not an expert either, but according to my knowledge tumuli and dolmen are necessarily kind of tombs (if you can cite some text that states the opposite I would indeed be interested). Maybe the exceptions that didn't serve as burial place aren't to be considered tumulus? > historic=tumulus > historic=dolmen > historic=stone_circle > historic=cromlich > historic=standing_stones the thing is that I expect the number of different burial structures used in OSM to raise with the time, and having a general tag for these kind of things and then subtag might ease the work with the data. On the other hand I agree: if there are structures that are considered to be dolmen or tumuli but are not intended for burial purposes this systematics would not work. > Having "pyramid" a subtag under "tomb" just feels wrong, also. This because not all pyramids are used as burial places, or because even the ones that were won't be called tomb? In the first case, you simply wouldn't tag all pyramids as tombs, but the ones where a burial took place (or was intended when they were built). > Definitely tomb rather than grave, in any case. thank you. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Craig Wallace wrote: > As that Wikipedia article says, its just a particular style/shape of > monument or memorial. > So I think it would be best tagged as historic=monument or > historic=memorial, plus a subtag for obelisk. > Maybe something like monument:style=obelisk ? Why not: historic=monument monument=obelisk > There's quite a few other monument/memorial styles that would be useful to > tag, eg statue, fountain, spire etc. amenity=fountain Oh...and I just discovered obelisk is already mentioned here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landmark Taginfo has a grand total of 5 landmark=obelisk Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
2011/2/1 Steve Bennett : > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Craig Wallace wrote: > Oh...and I just discovered obelisk is already mentioned here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landmark > > Taginfo has a grand total of 5 landmark=obelisk Yes, I saw this as well. This page is not representing any OSM-tagging-reality (it should be a proposal in draft-mode, because it is not working well and it is not in use). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
2011/2/1 Craig Wallace : > As that Wikipedia article says, its just a particular style/shape of > monument or memorial. > So I think it would be best tagged as historic=monument or > historic=memorial, plus a subtag for obelisk. > Maybe something like monument:style=obelisk ? This could be a way, but I am not yet convinced. Churches, temples and towers are also monuments, but we don't tag them currently as subtypes of monument. Indeed the tag historic=monument is very vague and therefor not very useful IMHO. > There's quite a few other monument/memorial styles that would be useful to > tag, eg statue, fountain, spire etc. Can you expand on the difference between memorial and monument? AFAIK a monument states that an object is "monumental" = big, bigger then human scale. Memorial is instead referring to a structure errected to remind about someone/something. In OSM they are exclusive (you cannot use both). I have the feeling that these 2 tags are broken by design, but they are very useful, because beeing so generic you can use them for lots of stuff ;-) Maybe it would be better to use them as flags? Describe the features with some tags, and add monument=yes (for monumental stuff) or memorial=yes (for stuff to remind about something). It could also be memorial=first_world_war (or memorial:topic=first_world_war) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging - graves, tombs
On 01/02/11 12:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/2/1 Chris Hill: What do you say about the wording? Would tomb or grave be suited better? A grave tends to be a hole dug in the ground to bury one or more bodies, a tomb is more of a structure, so they are not mutually exclusive. I would group pyramid, mausoleum, tumulus, dolmen and crypt as a tomb I see. I think that's the one I am after. I have addional complexity as in some tumuli there is several graves (not sure if they are graves, they are not dug into the earth but constructed chambers), with separate entrances, and known under different names (one for the tumulus and one for each burial place). Many tumuli do have multiple graves in them. Sometimes these are small stone-lined burials known as cists (kists) sometimes simply a pot containing cremated remains and other types too. Tumuli were in use over such a long period of time that traditions changed over the period, but a tumulus was usually built for a single burial then often extended or reused for later burials, sometimes more than a thousand years later. Very rarely do the remains still survive, so usually the most you can say about a tumulus is that it exists in a specific place, not who or how many people were buried there or when. The style and shape gives information about the a final date it was last modified, but only to perhaps a 500 year and not much about when it was first used. grave=cenotaph doesn't feel right to me, usually there is not an actual burial there, it is more of a monument. historic=monument,monument=cenotaph seems better to me. yes, it's not a place where actually a dead body was put, it is like an "empty grave", though with similar appearance to a real grave. I don't need this at the moment, so I suggest to keep it out from grave/tomb (or better document your suggestion in monument). I am interested because I am working on a project for the Imperial War Museum improving the data held for memorials including war memorials, cenotaphs, grave memorials, street shrines, rolls of honour, church memorials such as windows etc. We are working on the memorials for 1914-19 war at present. Most of these are historic=memorial to me, but historic=grave is interesting. OK, according to your comment I should better suggest historic=tomb to tag bigger structures, right? I think so, but I'm interested in other views too. For single graves we could have historic=grave which would mark the actual place where a person is buried. Yes, but in some cases multiple people are buried together, such as a family plot, and mass graves deserve a specific tag too. I would add some inscription info (probably not the full inscription we have a 255 char limit I think). I add would add UKNIWM_ref=* for the UK National Inventory of War Memorials ref, so all other details could be looked up from there, though a more general ref might be better. For bigger structures (collections=field of tombs/graves, distinct part of a cemetary) there could be another tag (maybe what you are after if tagging memorials like 1914-19). Many of the memorials I'm interested in are not at the actual site of a burial, which is why I think historic=memorial is best in those cases, but some are tombs or graves, hence my interest in your suggestions. I also need this for the whole structure (in my case it's several Etruscan necropoli). Not sure if tagging these places like a cemetary would be appropriate. I remember from Cairo Egypt that people were actually living inside the ancient necropolis, so tagging them like an actual cemetary would be confusing. Necropolis is an interesting special case, if people are living there maybe place=necropolis is best. I don't know enough to offer a firm suggestion. Some ancient cemeteries are now under modern settlements, but that's not the same thing. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
2011/2/1 Steve Bennett : > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> To tag obelisks I suggest >> man_made=obelisk >> an alternative could be >> historic=obelisk > > Definitely historic=obelisk, I think. It doesn't really matter if it's > *old*, it's still *historical*. not all of them. A Las Vegas Obelisk is hardly to be called "historical". > (But also consider what the distinction between this and pillars, > columns etc might be) usually you can already see this from the name (I will mainly tag egyptian ones, so there will be no doubt). For columns I'd say that an obelisk usually has 4 sides, while a column is round. I can't tell you what a pillar is (wikipedia says it's a column), my first guesses were that they stand for piers or pilasters, but they seem to be a kind of column. An obelisk definitely has to be open above (not load bearing), and probably not carrying a statue or something other then a "crest" (not sure if this is the right term, it should mean vertical end, probably ornamental / decorative). Of course these are later additions, and egyptian originals simply ended in a point directed towards the sky. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
On 01/02/2011 13:35, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/2/1 Craig Wallace: As that Wikipedia article says, its just a particular style/shape of monument or memorial. So I think it would be best tagged as historic=monument or historic=memorial, plus a subtag for obelisk. Maybe something like monument:style=obelisk ? This could be a way, but I am not yet convinced. Churches, temples and towers are also monuments, but we don't tag them currently as subtypes of monument. Indeed the tag historic=monument is very vague and therefor not very useful IMHO. I don't think churches / temples are really monuments, at least that's not their primary purpose. That purpose is to provide a place of worship. I think a tower can be a monument (and tagged as such), if that is why it was built. There's quite a few other monument/memorial styles that would be useful to tag, eg statue, fountain, spire etc. Can you expand on the difference between memorial and monument? AFAIK a monument states that an object is "monumental" = big, bigger then human scale. Memorial is instead referring to a structure errected to remind about someone/something. In OSM they are exclusive (you cannot use both). I have the feeling that these 2 tags are broken by design, but they are very useful, because beeing so generic you can use them for lots of stuff ;-) I think both monument and memorial are (usually) for structures in memory of something. The difference is more about the relative importance - ie if its the most important one in the country, and famous etc, then its a monument. If its just for a fairly local event or single person, then its a memorial. So not so much about the physical size, though monuments are usually bigger than memorials. Though its true that this is poorly defined, its not always clear whether to tag something as a monument or memorial. Maybe it would be better to use them as flags? Describe the features with some tags, and add monument=yes (for monumental stuff) or memorial=yes (for stuff to remind about something). It could also be memorial=first_world_war (or memorial:topic=first_world_war) I think its best to have one generic tag, for any structure in memory of something/someone, eg historic=memorial. Then use extra tags to specify what it is in memory of (memorial:topic=), plus the physical style (statue, obelisk). Maybe also a tag for the relative importance/significance, eg is it just a village memorial, or is it of national importance. Craig ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging - graves, tombs
2011/2/1 Chris Hill : > On 01/02/11 12:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> 2011/2/1 Chris Hill: > Many tumuli do have multiple graves in them. Sometimes these are small > stone-lined burials known as cists (kists) sometimes simply a pot containing > cremated remains and other types too. yes, wikipedia lists a whole lot of possible sub-classifications according to the form of the tumulus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus#Types%20of%20barrows >> For single graves we could have >> historic=grave which would mark the actual place where a person is >> buried. > > Yes, but in some cases multiple people are buried together, such as a family > plot, and mass graves deserve a specific tag too. we could have something like step_count for steps, i.e. tagging a value (e.g. grave_count) for the amount of people buried including "mass" and "several" for rough estimates. >> For bigger structures (collections=field of tombs/graves, >> distinct part of a cemetary) there could be another tag (maybe what >> you are after if tagging memorials like 1914-19). > Many of the memorials I'm interested in are not at the actual site of a > burial, which is why I think historic=memorial is best in those cases, but > some are tombs or graves, hence my interest in your suggestions. would you have a need to tag places as both, memorial and grave the same time? This would maybe speak against historic=grave. > Necropolis is an interesting special case, if people are living there maybe > place=necropolis is best. I don't know enough to offer a firm suggestion. > Some ancient cemeteries are now under modern settlements, but that's not the > same thing. I won't give it a dedicated place-tag actually, the ones in Cairo are probably better described with place=suburb (according OSM-meaning as "named part of the city" not as "suburban area") for the inhabited place, and a different tag (from the historic-range) for the historical structure. The necropolis I am mapping are not inhabited and have never been to my knowledge --- hm, maybe place=necropolis is not bad ;-), places do cover more then inhabited places in OSM (think of islands, localities, etc.). Currently I was more thinking about something like historic=archaeological_site, site_type=necropolis. The page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Darchaeological_site lists also site_type=tumulus field=yes for places with several tumuli, but this doesn't completely cover the necropolis I a mapping, as there are not only tumuli. necropolis would be more generic and could be refined with mapping the distinct features present inside the area. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
2011/2/1 Craig Wallace : > their primary purpose. That purpose is to provide a place of worship. I > think a tower can be a monument (and tagged as such), if that is why it was > built > I think both monument and memorial are (usually) for structures in memory of > something. think about the Eiffel tower in Paris. It is (IMHO) clearly a monument, but it was originally built as a temporal structure for the world fair. I won't be a monument according to the definition given above. > Though its true that this is poorly defined, its not always clear whether to > tag something as a monument or memorial. +1 >> Maybe it would be better to use them as flags? Describe the features >> with some tags, and add monument=yes (for monumental stuff) or >> memorial=yes (for stuff to remind about something). It could also be >> memorial=first_world_war (or memorial:topic=first_world_war) > > I think its best to have one generic tag, for any structure in memory of > something/someone, eg historic=memorial. > Then use extra tags to specify what it is in memory of (memorial:topic=), > plus the physical style (statue, obelisk). While this sounds reasonable, it would still make mapping hard. E.g. in Rome there is a lot of obelisks, and they are very easy to identify ;-), but tagging their original purpose or what they should remind of might be disputed or hard to find out. For the obelisks that didn't remain at their original site (like most of them) it might also be confusing, and there might be 2 topics (the original intention and the one of who moved it). Generally spoken, an obelisk (like a column) can be read as a "phallus" and has the connotation of power and centre --- similar to the stake in original cultures. It is used to mark a place as important (connecting the earth with the sky, nature with the gods, ...). The topic can be expanded to a whole book (books expanding on the meaning of this do indeed exist). But I do think that you are right: they will in most cases be monuments (historic=monument). This would IMHO support the idea to map them with a tag that is not "historic" itself, i.e. man_made=obelisk (pro: follows the man_made=tower logics) or building=obelisk (pro: is already rendered ;-) ). Or use memorial:type=obelisk in conjunction. > Maybe also a tag for the relative > importance/significance, eg is it just a village memorial, or is it of > national importance. you could use "rank" for this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/new_place_values#rank_on_other_features cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-dev] capitals; normalizing true, yes and 1
2011/2/1 Lennard : > Fortunately, for capital, we only use yes and not the other 2 variants in > the main mapnik map. It's not logical to add these at this point. We already > have to normalise true and 1 to yes for bridges and tunnels, and if those > variants would disappear from the database and the wiki, all the better. yes, at least we could _recommend_ to not use true or 1 any more in the wiki. It is really pointless to encourage mappers to use any of those three when in the end it will create trouble and effort for data consumers without any benefit for the mappers. Of course there will remain -1 to indicate the opposite direction in oneway streets. > Anyway, shouldn't this now move to [tagging] ? done cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:58:44 +0100 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Definitely historic=obelisk, I think. It doesn't really matter if > > it's *old*, it's still *historical*. > > > not all of them. A Las Vegas Obelisk is hardly to be called > "historical". historical=fake :D ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:39:22 +0100 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > think about the Eiffel tower in Paris. It is (IMHO) clearly a > monument, but it was originally built as a temporal structure for the > world fair. I won't be a monument according to the definition given > above. I see people classifying the Eiffel Tower as a monument on the web, but in the branch of English I use, it isn't a monument, for the reasons you give above. Calling the Eiffel Tower a monument is an example of how English changes. And people here are trying to capture English terms for things. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer writes: > ... E.g. > in Rome there is a lot of obelisks, and they are very easy to identify > , but tagging their original purpose or what they should remind of > might be disputed or hard to find out. ... > Generally spoken, an obelisk (like a column) can > be read as a "phallus" and has the connotation of power and centre --- > > > But I do think that you are right: they will in most cases be > monuments (historic=monument). This would IMHO support the idea to map > them with a tag that is not "historic" itself, i.e. man_made=obelisk > (pro: follows the man_made=tower logics) or building=obelisk (pro: is > already rendered ). Or use memorial:type=obelisk in conjunction. > An obelisk is something you really want to map. I think the most striking thing about them is how they stand out in the surroundings. No key is really spot-on, well maybe landmark but that is used on seamaps to mark prominent features on the horizon. So how to tag prominent features on the streets and squares. I think that there should be some general tag for all free standing columns and some special tag to separate the obelisk. My suggestion is man_made=column There is alot in common between the columns and other prominent monuments and such, like statues, fountains and different kinds of modern sculpture. maybe man_made=sculpture is an even more general tag? /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Site Relation
The Relation:type=site proposal [1] has been around for over two years, and I think it is a very useful relation, so I'd like to help it get approved. Milliams is the original creator of the draft, though I've cleaned up the proposal page and added some to the discussion, and I'd like to bring your attention to it to get additional comments. Please visit the proposal page [1] and add your comments to the discussion. I've been using this relation for schools and playgrounds, and I believe it is a needed addition to our tagging arsenal. Thanks! -Josh [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:35 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > This could be a way, but I am not yet convinced. Churches, temples and > towers are also monuments, but we don't tag them currently as subtypes > of monument. Indeed the tag historic=monument is very vague and > therefor not very useful IMHO. Do you mean the documentation is vague? Then let's fix it. My thinking in wanting columns, obelisks, memorials, monuments etc grouped under "historic" is because they're thematically related. Who is likely to want to see them on a map? Probably a tourist or someone with a particular interest in history. Dumping things under man_made=* isn't helpful because virtually everything we map would be either man_made=* or natural=*. We need to build smaller sets of things that work together. Btw your Las Vegas example is clearly an exception. I certainly wouldn't use the same tag for a real, historical obelisk and some sort of advertising feature. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-dev] capitals; normalizing true, yes and 1
I would prefer we normalize in the actual database instead of coming up with a ton of transformations needed to convert the data to something meaningful. Bots tend to have unintended consequences though, so if you want to do it yourself I would just use XAPI to pull the data in to JOSM and change it by hand. In this specific case it seems safe to convert capital=true -> capital=yes, but the other values I'm less sure what they were intending. On Feb 1, 2011, at 11:32 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2011/2/1 Lennard : >> Fortunately, for capital, we only use yes and not the other 2 variants in >> the main mapnik map. It's not logical to add these at this point. We already >> have to normalise true and 1 to yes for bridges and tunnels, and if those >> variants would disappear from the database and the wiki, all the better. > > > yes, at least we could _recommend_ to not use true or 1 any more in > the wiki. It is really pointless to encourage mappers to use any of > those three when in the end it will create trouble and effort for data > consumers without any benefit for the mappers. Of course there will > remain -1 to indicate the opposite direction in oneway streets. > >> Anyway, shouldn't this now move to [tagging] ? > > done > > cheers, > Martin > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
