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
