I'm not saying it should, but it could: somebody sees both usefulness to specify and usefulness to tag (heavily implying serious usefulness to "seeing the bigger picture of data" after they are entered and become geospatial) and makes a proposal that craftily "gathers" silos together into one of many flavors (what are we at, 19 different types?) of OSM's relations. (A relation's type=* key). I might imagine type=collection could be a good start, then those sort themselves into various agricultural "divisions" or so...and then somebody starts a thread on the tagging mail-list about "silo groups" (I'm simply making that up in a fantasy) and people begin to back-channel a proposal, which gets traffic on its Talk (Discussion) page and might get voted on and Approved... and used in the real world / real map as "sane, well specified, harmonious, agreed upon with a certain amount of consensus..." and so on.
How very OSM that would be. At this point in time, I'll say "rather nice as entered" (as a little cluster of silos) and whoever wants to dream of mapping silos in some fancy fashion certainly could. And might someday. Bean Growers Australia, I wave from California! Such a wonderful plastic map...uh, I mean database, we have here. > On Aug 10, 2022, at 6:51 PM, Phil Wyatt <p...@wyatt-family.com> wrote: > > They look fine – I have also done one set as ways which is the other > alternative > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/-26.55069/151.83033 > > Cheers - Phil > > From: Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2022 11:08 AM > To: Ewen Hill <ewen.h...@gmail.com> > Cc: OSM-Au <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Tagging silos? > > Tried the first group of them: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-26.55053/151.83027 > > Still not convinced that individual is the way to go? > > Thanks > > Graeme > _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
