On 8/05/2015 7:22 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2015-05-08 10:15 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com
<mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com>>:
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Brad Neuhauser
<brad.neuhau...@gmail.com <mailto:brad.neuhau...@gmail.com>> wrote:
a photo of a stone cross over 5m tall
since you cannot walk in it/over it (cfr. monument is large ... as
in you can walk inside it, over it.) it is a memorial.
a monument is often a building IMHO
5 meters is large ;-)
a monument can be a building, but it can also be something else.
If it is 10 metres high .. but 50 millimeters diameter ... is it still
'large'?
I think that 'large' is a volume thing ... For something to be walked
through/over it would need to be say 3 m by 3 m by 3 m .. so 27 cubic
meters .. I'd think that would be a minimum volume for 'large'?
IMHO it also depends on context, if you are in a monumental setting
with everything huge, a 5 meter stone cross might be just a small
insignificant part of it, and could eventually be considered a
memorial by the mapper, if instead this is an isolated feature I would
be more inclined to map it as monument.
Context plays a part. A significant hill in a flat desert might be 10
meters high. (Or very much smaller if you read Len Beadells books.)
======================
I am reluctant to retag a feature that has been tagged a monument by
someone else where I would have tagged it a memorial, unless it is
really 'small', where it is 'medium" I leave it alone.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
