[Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Robert Szczepanek]

Hi all,

We work on flood marks project [13] and your opinion on proper tagging 
is crucial for us, as database of existing features is based on OSM 
records. We have identified probably most of existing marks in Poland, 
but would like to finally unify tagging within OSM project.


Both terms (flood mark and high water mark) can be treated as synonyms 
[1][2].
High water mark is more popular in USA [3][4], while flood mark in 
Europe [5][6]. But this is not a rule [7].


Why "flood mark" term is better in our opinion?
1. "Flood" term is shorter and easier to understand worldwide compared 
to "high water".
2. Flood mark is more popular in scientific publications [8, 9, 10]. 
References are from "Hydrology and Earth System Sciences", one of the 
best hydrological journals [11].
3. "High-water mark" term is used also in economy and has another 
meaning [12].
4. All additional keys usually contain "flood", not "high water" term. 
Like "flood_date". It will be more consistent.


In OSM database there are now:
- 262 features with flood_mark=yes [14]
- 80 features with historic=highwater_mark [16]
- 20 features with high_water_mark=yes [15]

Question 1:
a/ flood_mark
b/ high_water_mark
c/ highwater_mark

Question 2:
Which tagging convention should we follow:
a/ flood_mark=yes + historic=memorial + memorial:type=flood_mark
b/ historic=flood_mark + flood_mark:type=(plaque, painted, ...)
c/ historic=highwater_mark

Not every flood mark is a memorial, so probably 2.a/ is not the optimal 
option. Short discussion about this can be found here [17].


Thank you for help,
Robert


References
[1] http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks
[2] 
https://theconversation.com/historical-record-shows-these-floods-are-no-high-water-mark-23266

[3] https://www.weather.gov/gld/1935flood-hwmarks
[4] https://www.fema.gov/high-water-mark-initiative
[5] 
https://www.ceh.ac.uk/news-and-media/news/ceh-experts-contribute-environment-agency-report-feh-local-flood-frequency-estimation
[6] 
http://www.studia.photos/england/oxford-oxfordshire-england-uk/attachment/flood-marks-osney-lock-river-thames-oxford-oxfordshire-england-uk/
[7] 
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-flood-level-hight-marks-on-st-margarets-church-porch-kings-lynn-norfolk-11448961.html

[8] https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/19/3517/2015/hess-19-3517-2015.pdf
[9] 
https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/12/6541/2015/hessd-12-6541-2015.pdf
[10] 
https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/4029/2014/hess-18-4029-2014.pdf

[11] https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=hydrology
[12] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/highwatermark.asp
[13] http://openhydrology.org/maps/flood_mark/
[14] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:flood_mark
[15] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:high_water_mark
[16] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dhighwater_mark
[17] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:historic%3Dhighwater_mark

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Philip Barnes]

High water is commonly used in terms of tides. 

Phil (trigpoint) 

On 25 July 2018 13:05:56 BST, Robert Szczepanek  wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>We work on flood marks project [13] and your opinion on proper tagging 
>is crucial for us, as database of existing features is based on OSM 
>records. We have identified probably most of existing marks in Poland, 
>but would like to finally unify tagging within OSM project.
>
>Both terms (flood mark and high water mark) can be treated as synonyms 
>[1][2].
>High water mark is more popular in USA [3][4], while flood mark in 
>Europe [5][6]. But this is not a rule [7].
>
>Why "flood mark" term is better in our opinion?
>1. "Flood" term is shorter and easier to understand worldwide compared 
>to "high water".
>2. Flood mark is more popular in scientific publications [8, 9, 10]. 
>References are from "Hydrology and Earth System Sciences", one of the 
>best hydrological journals [11].
>3. "High-water mark" term is used also in economy and has another 
>meaning [12].
>4. All additional keys usually contain "flood", not "high water" term. 
>Like "flood_date". It will be more consistent.
>
>In OSM database there are now:
>- 262 features with flood_mark=yes [14]
>- 80 features with historic=highwater_mark [16]
>- 20 features with high_water_mark=yes [15]
>
>Question 1:
>a/ flood_mark
>b/ high_water_mark
>c/ highwater_mark
>
>Question 2:
>Which tagging convention should we follow:
>a/ flood_mark=yes + historic=memorial + memorial:type=flood_mark
>b/ historic=flood_mark + flood_mark:type=(plaque, painted, ...)
>c/ historic=highwater_mark
>
>Not every flood mark is a memorial, so probably 2.a/ is not the optimal
>
>option. Short discussion about this can be found here [17].
>
>Thank you for help,
>Robert
>
>
>References
>[1] http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks
>[2] 
>https://theconversation.com/historical-record-shows-these-floods-are-no-high-water-mark-23266
>[3] https://www.weather.gov/gld/1935flood-hwmarks
>[4] https://www.fema.gov/high-water-mark-initiative
>[5] 
>https://www.ceh.ac.uk/news-and-media/news/ceh-experts-contribute-environment-agency-report-feh-local-flood-frequency-estimation
>[6] 
>http://www.studia.photos/england/oxford-oxfordshire-england-uk/attachment/flood-marks-osney-lock-river-thames-oxford-oxfordshire-england-uk/
>[7] 
>https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-flood-level-hight-marks-on-st-margarets-church-porch-kings-lynn-norfolk-11448961.html
>[8]
>https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/19/3517/2015/hess-19-3517-2015.pdf
>[9] 
>https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/12/6541/2015/hessd-12-6541-2015.pdf
>[10] 
>https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/4029/2014/hess-18-4029-2014.pdf
>[11] https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=hydrology
>[12] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/highwatermark.asp
>[13] http://openhydrology.org/maps/flood_mark/
>[14] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:flood_mark
>[15] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:high_water_mark
>[16] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dhighwater_mark
>[17]
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:historic%3Dhighwater_mark
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Robert Szczepanek]

Right Phil, thanks for this remark.
Tides are rather short-term and more predictable water table variations. 
As such, seldom marked with physical signs. In Poland we found 0 within 
262.


High water mark (boundary) is probably more legal term - demarcation of 
water/land mainly in coastal zones. It can be found in US, GB, AU and 
probably many other countries [1][2].


Big problem is very wide (misleading) meaning of "high water mark" [3].

regards,
Robert

[1] 
http://www.valuergeneral.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/216980/Valuation_of_land_below_high_water_mark_commercial_waterfront_occupancies_July_2017.pdf

[2] http://cromersurveyors.com.au/blog/high-water-mark-title
[3] http://www.mikelynaugh.com/MalvernHill/images/IMG_2341.jpg

W dniu 25.07.2018 o 14:21, Philip Barnes pisze:

High water is commonly used in terms of tides.

Phil (trigpoint)

On 25 July 2018 13:05:56 BST, Robert Szczepanek  
wrote:


Hi all,

We work on flood marks project [13] and your opinion on proper tagging
is crucial for us, as database of existing features is based on OSM
records. We have identified probably most of existing marks in Poland,
but would like to finally unify tagging within OSM project.

Both terms (flood mark and high water mark) can be treated as synonyms
[1][2].
High water mark is more popular in USA [3][4], while flood mark in
Europe [5][6]. But this is not a rule [7].

Why "flood mark" term is better in our opinion?
1. "Flood" term is shorter and easier to understand worldwide compared
to "high water".
2. Flood mark is more popular in scientific publications [8, 9, 10].
References are from "Hydrology and Earth System Sciences", one of the
best hydrological journals [11].
3. "High-water mark" term is used also in economy and has another
meaning [12].
4. All additional keys usually contain "flood", not "high water" term.
Like "flood_date". It will be more consistent.

In OSM database there are now:
- 262 features with flood_mark=yes [14]
- 80 features with historic=highwater_mark [16]
- 20 features with high_water_mark=yes [15]

Question 1:
a/ flood_mark
b/ high_water_mark
c/ highwater_mark

Question 2:
Which tagging convention should we follow:
a/ flood_mark=yes + historic=memorial + memorial:type=flood_mark
b/ historic=flood_mark + flood_mark:type=(plaque, painted, ...)
c/ historic=highwater_mark

Not every flood mark is a memorial, so probably 2.a/ is not the optimal
option. Short discussion about this can be found here [17].

Thank you for help,
Robert


References
[1]http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks
[2]

https://theconversation.com/historical-record-shows-these-floods-are-no-high-water-mark-23266
[3]https://www.weather.gov/gld/1935flood-hwmarks
[4]https://www.fema.gov/high-water-mark-initiative
[5]

https://www.ceh.ac.uk/news-and-media/news/ceh-experts-contribute-environment-agency-report-feh-local-flood-frequency-estimation
[6]

http://www.studia.photos/england/oxford-oxfordshire-england-uk/attachment/flood-marks-osney-lock-river-thames-oxford-oxfordshire-england-uk/
[7]

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-flood-level-hight-marks-on-st-margarets-church-porch-kings-lynn-norfolk-11448961.html
[8]https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/19/3517/2015/hess-19-3517-2015.pdf
[9]

https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/12/6541/2015/hessd-12-6541-2015.pdf
[10]
https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/4029/2014/hess-18-4029-2014.pdf
[11]https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=hydrology
[12]https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/highwatermark.asp
[13]http://openhydrology.org/maps/flood_mark/
[14]https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:flood_mark
[15]https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:high_water_mark
[16]https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dhighwater_mark
[17]https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:historic%3Dhighwater_mark



Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Andrew Davidson]

On 25/07/18 22:05, Robert Szczepanek wrote:


Question 1:
a/ flood_mark
b/ high_water_mark
c/ highwater_mark   


A.

High water mark is the level that the water got to, so if you marked 
that it would be a high water mark marker




Question 2:
Which tagging convention should we follow:
a/ flood_mark=yes + historic=memorial + memorial:type=flood_mark
b/ historic=flood_mark + flood_mark:type=(plaque, painted, ...)
c/ historic=highwater_mark


Have you thought about using something like man_made=flood_mark? Similar 
to man_made=survey_point 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurvey_point).


Historic suggests that the flood mark is interesting because it is old. 
Some flood marks are certainly old and interesting:


http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-5861
http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-5857

Others are quite new:

http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-5865
http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-6289

Does it have to be flood_mark:type=*? Would flood_mark=* be adequate?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Warin]

On 26/07/18 20:29, Andrew Davidson wrote:

On 25/07/18 22:05, Robert Szczepanek wrote:


Question 1:
a/ flood_mark
b/ high_water_mark
c/ highwater_mark


A.

High water mark is the level that the water got to, so if you marked 
that it would be a high water mark marker




Question 2:
Which tagging convention should we follow:
a/ flood_mark=yes + historic=memorial + memorial:type=flood_mark
b/ historic=flood_mark + flood_mark:type=(plaque, painted, ...)
c/ historic=highwater_mark


Have you thought about using something like man_made=flood_mark? 
Similar to man_made=survey_point 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurvey_point).


Historic suggests that the flood mark is interesting because it is 
old. Some flood marks are certainly old and interesting:


http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-5861 

http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-5857 



Others are quite new:

http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-5865 

http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-6289 



Does it have to be flood_mark:type=*? Would flood_mark=* be adequate?

___



Some flood marks carry a number of different heights from different 
dates. Would be good to map those too.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Robert Szczepanek]

W dniu 26.07.2018 o 12:29, Andrew Davidson pisze:

On 25/07/18 22:05, Robert Szczepanek wrote:


Question 2:
Which tagging convention should we follow:
a/ flood_mark=yes + historic=memorial + memorial:type=flood_mark
b/ historic=flood_mark + flood_mark:type=(plaque, painted, ...)
c/ historic=highwater_mark


Historic suggests that the flood mark is interesting because it is old. 
Some flood marks are certainly old and interesting:
http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-5861 
http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-5857 


Others are quite new:
http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-5865 
http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-6289 



Indeed not all flood marks are really old/historic. But that threshold 
is probably very fuzzy.


Looking at one of you examples 
(https://www.flickr.com/photos/23954094@N05/9701630002) I realized that 
Frank (and probably many others) call it "Flood high water marks".


So basic tag for mark could be
flood_mark=(yes, plaque, pole, painted, ...),
just to avoid flood_mark:type=*.
And additionally, features with historical value can get 
historic=highwater_mark. Makes it sense?



Does it have to be flood_mark:type=*? Would flood_mark=* be adequate?



Great hint - thanks!

regards,
Robert

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Robert Szczepanek]

W dniu 26.07.2018 o 12:43, Warin pisze:
Some flood marks carry a number of different heights from different 
dates. Would be good to map those too.


We map them and split into several nodes at the same place:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4381386159
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4381386160
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4381386161

regards,
Robert

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 3. Aug 2018, at 18:03, Robert Szczepanek  wrote:
> 
> Indeed not all flood marks are really old/historic. But that threshold is 
> probably very fuzzy.


I would put it like this: although they are not all old, they are all history 
related (they show a historic flood level)


Cheers , Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Volker Schmidt]

Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the same thing.
Read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark
to get the gist.
There are ordinary high water marks (and I suppose also the opposite,
ordinary low water marks) which are based on the regular tides in the area.
A flood mark would be a marker for the water level reached in certain,
particular events.
I am not sure about terminology in different jurisdictions, but the concept
seems to be clear to me that there are two different things we want to tag.


On 5 August 2018 at 11:46, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 3. Aug 2018, at 18:03, Robert Szczepanek 
> wrote:
> >
> > Indeed not all flood marks are really old/historic. But that threshold
> is probably very fuzzy.
>
>
> I would put it like this: although they are not all old, they are all
> history related (they show a historic flood level)
>
>
> Cheers , Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Yves]

Spotted thanks to Osmand:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2401935175
Yves 

Le 5 août 2018 12:23:40 GMT+02:00, Volker Schmidt  a écrit :
>Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the same thing.
>Read
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark
>to get the gist.
>There are ordinary high water marks (and I suppose also the opposite,
>ordinary low water marks) which are based on the regular tides in the
>area.
>A flood mark would be a marker for the water level reached in certain,
>particular events.
>I am not sure about terminology in different jurisdictions, but the
>concept
>seems to be clear to me that there are two different things we want to
>tag.
>
>
>On 5 August 2018 at 11:46, Martin Koppenhoefer 
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> > On 3. Aug 2018, at 18:03, Robert Szczepanek 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Indeed not all flood marks are really old/historic. But that
>threshold
>> is probably very fuzzy.
>>
>>
>> I would put it like this: although they are not all old, they are all
>> history related (they show a historic flood level)
>>
>>
>> Cheers , Martin
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Robert Szczepanek]

W dniu 05.08.2018 o 12:23, Volker Schmidt pisze:

Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the same thing.
Read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark
to get the gist.
There are ordinary high water marks (and I suppose also the opposite, 
ordinary low water marks) which are based on the regular tides in the area.
A flood mark would be a marker for the water level reached in certain, 
particular events.
I am not sure about terminology in different jurisdictions, but the 
concept seems to be clear to me that there are two different things we 
want to tag.


I would like it to be so:
- flood marks as flood signs,
- highwater marks as tide signs.
But even in recent scientific papers this division is not so clear.

Another issue is that from the beginning, on OSM wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic
mark related to floods is described as
historic=highwater_mark

What would be the optimal tagging solution from OSM point of view?

regards
Robert

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 6 August 2018 at 02:48, Robert Szczepanek  wrote:

> W dniu 05.08.2018 o 12:23, Volker Schmidt pisze:
>
>> Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the same thing.
>> Read
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark
>> to get the gist.
>> There are ordinary high water marks (and I suppose also the opposite,
>> ordinary low water marks) which are based on the regular tides in the area.
>> A flood mark would be a marker for the water level reached in certain,
>> particular events.
>> I am not sure about terminology in different jurisdictions, but the
>> concept seems to be clear to me that there are two different things we want
>> to tag.
>>
>
> I would like it to be so:
> - flood marks as flood signs,
> - highwater marks as tide signs.
> But even in recent scientific papers this division is not so clear.
>
> Another issue is that from the beginning, on OSM wiki
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic
> mark related to floods is described as
> historic=highwater_mark
>
> What would be the optimal tagging solution from OSM point of view?
>
> regards
> Robert


I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it
historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water to be a
waterways thing ie the high tide mark.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Dave Swarthout]

> I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it
historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water to be a
waterways thing ie the high tide mark.

+1

Very sensible IMO.

On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 2:59 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On 6 August 2018 at 02:48, Robert Szczepanek  wrote:
>
>> W dniu 05.08.2018 o 12:23, Volker Schmidt pisze:
>>
>>> Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the same thing.
>>> Read
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark
>>> to get the gist.
>>> There are ordinary high water marks (and I suppose also the opposite,
>>> ordinary low water marks) which are based on the regular tides in the area.
>>> A flood mark would be a marker for the water level reached in certain,
>>> particular events.
>>> I am not sure about terminology in different jurisdictions, but the
>>> concept seems to be clear to me that there are two different things we want
>>> to tag.
>>>
>>
>> I would like it to be so:
>> - flood marks as flood signs,
>> - highwater marks as tide signs.
>> But even in recent scientific papers this division is not so clear.
>>
>> Another issue is that from the beginning, on OSM wiki
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic
>> mark related to floods is described as
>> historic=highwater_mark
>>
>> What would be the optimal tagging solution from OSM point of view?
>>
>> regards
>> Robert
>
>
> I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it
> historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water to be a
> waterways thing ie the high tide mark.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Warin]

On 06/08/18 09:01, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it 
historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water to 
be a waterways thing ie the high tide mark.


+1

Very sensible IMO.


Yes.
Complication .. a historic king tide combined with a storm event may be 
considered a historic flood level.

But 'normal' high tides should be part of the water way tagging system.



On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 2:59 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:




On 6 August 2018 at 02:48, Robert Szczepanek mailto:rob...@szczepanek.pl>> wrote:

W dniu 05.08.2018 o 12:23, Volker Schmidt pisze:

Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the
same thing.
Read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark
to get the gist.
There are ordinary high water marks (and I suppose also
the opposite, ordinary low water marks) which are based on
the regular tides in the area.
A flood mark would be a marker for the water level reached
in certain, particular events.
I am not sure about terminology in different
jurisdictions, but the concept seems to be clear to me
that there are two different things we want to tag.


I would like it to be so:
- flood marks as flood signs,
- highwater marks as tide signs.
But even in recent scientific papers this division is not so
clear.

Another issue is that from the beginning, on OSM wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic
mark related to floods is described as
historic=highwater_mark

What would be the optimal tagging solution from OSM point of view?

regards
Robert


I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it
historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water
to be a waterways thing ie the high tide mark.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Robert Szczepanek]

W dniu 06.08.2018 o 01:48, Warin pisze:

On 06/08/18 09:01, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it 
historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water to 
be a waterways thing ie the high tide mark.


Before making any changes in wiki I would like to find final agreement 
on that topic.
"Flood level" (highest water table) is usually only one of several 
informations we can find on "flood mark". Others can be date of flood, 
inscription, etc.

Physical object mapped in OSM is rather mark, not just water/flood level.
So "historic=flood_mark" is probably more generic.



+1

Very sensible IMO.


Yes.
Complication .. a historic king tide combined with a storm event may be 
considered a historic flood level.

But 'normal' high tides should be part of the water way tagging system.



This can be sometimes hard to distinguish. But tide+storm I would 
consider rather as flood event - probably higher level comparing to 
periodic tides.

In such a case we can find in on place two types of marks:
* historic=highwater_mark - with information about periodic highest 
water level (no date provided),

* historic=flood_mark - with information about flood event (with date)
So existence of date on such mark could be a good information for proper 
tag assignment. I'm not familiar with tides, so please correct me if 
this is not the case.


regards
Robert

On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 2:59 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:




On 6 August 2018 at 02:48, Robert Szczepanek mailto:rob...@szczepanek.pl>> wrote:

W dniu 05.08.2018 o 12:23, Volker Schmidt pisze:

Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the
same thing.
Read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark
to get the gist.
There are ordinary high water marks (and I suppose also
the opposite, ordinary low water marks) which are based on
the regular tides in the area.
A flood mark would be a marker for the water level reached
in certain, particular events.
I am not sure about terminology in different
jurisdictions, but the concept seems to be clear to me
that there are two different things we want to tag.


I would like it to be so:
- flood marks as flood signs,
- highwater marks as tide signs.
But even in recent scientific papers this division is not so
clear.

Another issue is that from the beginning, on OSM wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic
mark related to floods is described as
historic=highwater_mark

What would be the optimal tagging solution from OSM point of view?

regards
Robert


I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it
historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water
to be a waterways thing ie the high tide mark.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 8 August 2018 at 05:00, Robert Szczepanek  wrote:
>
>
> Before making any changes in wiki I would like to find final agreement on
> that topic.
> "Flood level" (highest water table) is usually only one of several
> informations we can find on "flood mark". Others can be date of flood,
> inscription, etc.
> Physical object mapped in OSM is rather mark, not just water/flood level.
> So "historic=flood_mark" is probably more generic.


Yes, flood_mark would be a better wording than flood_level


>
>> Yes.
>> Complication .. a historic king tide combined with a storm event may be
>> considered a historic flood level.
>> But 'normal' high tides should be part of the water way tagging system.
>>
>>
> This can be sometimes hard to distinguish. But tide+storm I would consider
> rather as flood event - probably higher level comparing to periodic tides.
>

Quite definitely - a storm surge becomes a flood, not just a very high tide


> In such a case we can find in on place two types of marks:
> * historic=highwater_mark - with information about periodic highest water
> level (no date provided),
> * historic=flood_mark - with information about flood event (with date)
> So existence of date on such mark could be a good information for proper
> tag assignment. I'm not familiar with tides, so please correct me if this
> is not the case.


High tide is defined as " the highest level which can be predicted to occur
under average meteorological conditions and any combination of astronomical
conditions"
https://www.ausmarinescience.com/marine-science-basics/tides/highest-astronomical-tide/

IMHO, the high tide mark as such shouldn't really be shown in OSM as it
should be the line marking either the coastline or riverbank.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging