Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Site Relation
Tobias and Eugene, I understand your point, so I've added a few sentences to the proposal [1] about using simpler tools when appropriate. -Josh [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site#Proposal On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: > Josh Doe wrote: >> 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. >> [...] >> I've been using this relation for schools and playgrounds, >> and I believe it is a needed addition to our tagging arsenal. > > It might be useful in some cases, but it shouldn't be overused. If the > site is adequately described by a polygon, it can and imo should be > mapped as an area with the appropriate tags. > > For example, a school that occupies one site with some buildings, sport > facilities ... can trivially be mapped as an area with amenity=school > and other tags (such as name) referring to the entire site, with > separate elements for the buildings contained within. > > A site relation wouldn't add any information that cannot be determined > by an is-in-polygon test, a well-explored algorithmic task. > > I can support the proposal if (and only if) it is made clear that site > relations are only to be used where simpler tools aren't sufficient. > > Tobias Knerr > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
2011/2/2 : > Obelisks are also fairly common as grave markers, although you would probably > tag those differently than obelisks raised to commemorate some event. We should propose to tag the height as well. There are not so many ancient egyptian obelisks in the world (actually most of them are in Rome, and there are "only" 13 pieces). I suggest height for the overall height (including the base and eventual additions to the top) above ground ( so you get the height of the top by adding ele and height). and obelisk:height for the net height of the obelisk itself we can also think about obelisk:material and obelisk:weight (this is usually known due to the general interest in these pieces). Has there been a conclusion on which "main" tag to use? Who is against man_made and who is against historic? Actually I am against subtagging them as columns (IMHO they don't qualify, a column can't have a pointed top). There is another idea in conjunction with this I want to ask you about: what about creating a node on the original place where the obelisk was erected and create a relation between the actual place and the former one? This should be generally doable for the ancient obelisks (I guess the places are known). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
2011/2/3 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer : > 2011/2/2 : >> Obelisks are also fairly common as grave markers, although you would >> probably tag those differently than obelisks raised to commemorate some >> event. > > > We should propose to tag the height as well. There are not so many > ancient egyptian obelisks in the world (actually most of them are in > Rome, and there are "only" 13 pieces). we could have an additional tag for the size which aims at cases where exact data is not easily available: obelisk:size with values "monumental" (would be everything say above 6 meters height) "modern" (not sure for the wording), would be everything between small and monumental "small" would be everything inferior to 1 meter. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Site Relation
2011/2/2 Tobias Knerr : > It might be useful in some cases, but it shouldn't be overused. If the > site is adequately described by a polygon, it can and imo should be > mapped as an area with the appropriate tags. +1 > For example, a school that occupies one site with some buildings, sport > facilities ... can trivially be mapped as an area with amenity=school > and other tags (such as name) referring to the entire site, with > separate elements for the buildings contained within. +1 > A site relation wouldn't add any information that cannot be determined > by an is-in-polygon test, a well-explored algorithmic task. IMHO a site relation would allow for more complex situations. Say you have an archaeological site. There will be a main entrance (or 2), a place where to buy tickets (not necessarily geometrically inside the site itself) and service entrances that may be used only by staff. Then there might be surveillance cameras that are positioned outside the actual site, ... I was recently mapping an archaeological site, where part of it was fenced and required a fee. Other parts were located around, but not all of them adjacent (some had fields between them and the "main" site). I created 3 site relations: one for the part that was fenced and required a fee, one for the rest and one to combine the 2 site relations. The site relation allows for rendering hints IMHO. You can group distinct objects (polygons) into a bigger whole, allowing for the renderer to understand the size (and therefor prominence to display it) of the complex. Currently, if you split big areas into smaller distinct areas, this information gets lost. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer writes: > Has there been a conclusion on which "main" tag to use? Who is against > man_made and who is against historic? > > Actually I am against subtagging them as columns (IMHO they don't > qualify, a column can't have a pointed top). > A very close cousin to the obelisk is the etiopian stelae, here is one example moved to Rome (and back again) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelisk_of_Axum "These obelisk, properly termed "stele" or the native "hawilt/hawilti" (as they do not end in a pyramid), was carved and erected in the 4th century AD by subjects of the Kingdom of Aksum" It would be great if there where an english term that could encompass obelisks, high freestanding columns and other stelae that is clos in resemblance. but if there isn´t any such term then: man_made=obelisk is great. It fits with the other man_made. It is better than historic=obelisk (why tag the Las Vegas obelisk different from others) Maybe tourism, culture or landmark=obelisk could work? M∡rtin Koppenhoefer writes: > I suggest > height for the overall height (including the base and eventual > additions to the top) above ground ( so you get the height of the top > by adding ele and height). > and > obelisk:height for the net height of the obelisk itself As you say, there should be a whole range of nice subtags to describe it. I hope we are not going to tag the individual parts of the monument. The overall height (including the base and eventual additions to the top) should be one of the most important subtags. Let us test to tag some examples here on the mail-list. /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
2011/2/3 Johan Jönsson : > It would be great if there where an english term that could encompass > obelisks, high freestanding columns and other stelae that is clos in > resemblance. Hm, not sure if we need this. I would in fact like to have a distinct tag for columns as well. > Maybe tourism, culture or landmark=obelisk could work? landmark would work for many cases (could be tagged additionally when it applies), culture is not very clear if it comes and where it steers to, but tourism is IMHO not good at all. I set up a proposal for man_made=obelisk. Can you please help me to find the right word for stuff that is added later on top? (in German that would be something like "Bekrönung" or "Spitze"): e.g. http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Obeliskenspitze.jpg&filetimestamp=20051003131029 the proposal is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/obelisk cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
On 03/02/2011 20:22, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Can you please help me to find the right word for stuff that is added later on top? (in German that would be something like "Bekrönung" or "Spitze"): e.g. http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Obeliskenspitze.jpg&filetimestamp=20051003131029 Tricky. Looking through the translations of Spitze at leo.de, either apex or pinnacle might do. -- Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
