Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Education Reform

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-11-19 12:19 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole :

> While I'm a bit undecided on if we need an education reform at all and
> you need to make clear what the voting is actually on, the underlying
> proposal is far from ready for any kind of vote or usage at this point
> in time.
>


I agree with all points.



> You need to at least provide a reasonably thorough treatment of how
> existing tagging should be mapped to your new scheme and give some
> rationale why you are lumping in non-educational facilities (see
> educational=nursery).



+1, I don't see a need to deprecate amenity=university or school or the
other existing and well used tags, but neither do I see benefit from double
tagging these (if the tags convey the same meaning). Also the term
"education" doesn't really fit with (childcare), nursery, (daycare),
crèche, etc. and is incomplete for universities because a significant part
of unis is research.

The proposed values are incomplete and mix orthogonal "classes" (e.g.
"administrative" = field of endeavor same key as school / university =
level of education) (e.g. what happens to "college", are these kept or
merged into "university"? What about dance / music (singing / instruments,
...) / schools? Academies? Conservatories? Professional schools? Subtags
how to tag the specialization (if any), about the degress you can get,
institutes and faculties, etc.).

Maybe not all of this is needed in this proposal, but if we're to redesign
things I would want to integrate at least what we can already now see is
missing (or not documented well). Currentlly you don't suggest more than
regrouping a selection of related things (with already established tags)
under a new education key.

I would also reword the parts which suggest the function tags should be
applied to "buildings" (these can be applied to nodes or areas or other
objects (sites, etc.), including but not limited to areas that are defined
by a single building outline).

As Simon has written, there's some work missing to get this to a point
where it can be voted.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Education Reform

[Erkin Alp Güney]

> What about dance / music (singing / instruments, ...) / schools?
> Academies? Conservatories? Professional schools?
education=specialty
> Subtags how to tag the specialization (if any), about the degress you
> can get, institutes and faculties, etc.).
These tags already exist. Institutes and faculties are now covered in
"how to tag universities and mixed campuses" section of the proposal.

Yours, faithfully
Erkin Alp

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Education Reform

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-11-20 11:04 GMT+01:00 Erkin Alp Güney :

>
> > What about dance / music (singing / instruments, ...) / schools?
> > Academies? Conservatories? Professional schools?
> education=specialty
>


I'm not convinced. Why is there an education=driving or administrative, but
an academy of fine arts (similar to a university) or conservatory (might be
similar to a university) go into the same category as a dance school (could
be several levels, from the hobbyist leisure dance school to professional
preparation) or the music school kids go 1 time a week? This seems complete
arbitrary.
IMHO a good proposal should not need a "catch-all" tag for the rest (i.e.
what wasn't thought of earlier) which basically shifts meaningful tagging
into a subtag. If we already undertake the step to create a new top level
key just for education, all cases should fit into the same scheme (i.e. if
there is education=driving, there should also be education=dancing or
education=gliding, but this would mean "education" is about the topic, and
not about the level which would be implied by terms like "university" or
"graduate" or "vocational").

It should be clear, what the meaning of the "education" tags is (kind of
classification/criterion). Level of education? Field of studies? Then there
should be subtags with distinct meaning that cater each for a property
(which must be isolated/defined).

I would also expect suggestions for several more details that aren't
covered yet, e.g. male, female / both-(etc.), mixed age classes or not or
maybe even both (e.g. relevant for kindergarten), etc.


What about the kind of specialization for general-education (e.g. classical
education (latin and greek), scientific, artistic, etc.)?

There's not much about a rationale, e.g. what do you consider "all
educational facilities/institutions" and based on which criterion? E.g.
what about a shooting club, aren't people going there to learn how to
safely handle a gun, and how to use it / improve their ability? Similar
things can be said about a lot of clubs / associations. When does it fall
under "education"? This ambiguity together with instances like "university"
(not just education) are the reason it could be generally worth to question
a restructuring under a new "education" key according to this criterion.




> > Subtags how to tag the specialization (if any), about the degress you
> > can get, institutes and faculties, etc.).
> These tags already exist. Institutes and faculties are now covered in
> "how to tag universities and mixed campuses" section of the proposal.



it may be my cultural background, but I would not use the term "school" for
parts of a university.
The new relation type=institution remains mysterious, there are 7 instances
of it in the db, but no documentation whatsoever. Is this a kind of
"collection"? Can't we use a standard relation like "multipolygon" or
"site" (ok, there's the common problem with universities that they have
many different locations, often even single faculties have different
locations, and it would be desirable to have a method to connect e.g. 2
site relations to one entity, I think sometimes we are doing this with
operator and name tags, but it is not very reliable or consistent,
something should indeed be introduced). Is "institution" only used for
educational features? It would probably merit a whole new proposal.
If college is "obsolete", does this mean colleges should be tagged as
universities?

What about police schools, or military schools? Are those handled with a
"military" (e.g.) property on a university or vocational school element, or
are they new main values?

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Education Reform

[Marc Gemis]

What is the difference with the rejected Education 2.0 proposal from
2016 ? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Education_2.0

Aren't we repeating all the arguments again ?

m.

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
>
> 2017-11-20 11:04 GMT+01:00 Erkin Alp Güney :
>>
>>
>> > What about dance / music (singing / instruments, ...) / schools?
>> > Academies? Conservatories? Professional schools?
>> education=specialty
>
>
>
> I'm not convinced. Why is there an education=driving or administrative, but
> an academy of fine arts (similar to a university) or conservatory (might be
> similar to a university) go into the same category as a dance school (could
> be several levels, from the hobbyist leisure dance school to professional
> preparation) or the music school kids go 1 time a week? This seems complete
> arbitrary.
> IMHO a good proposal should not need a "catch-all" tag for the rest (i.e.
> what wasn't thought of earlier) which basically shifts meaningful tagging
> into a subtag. If we already undertake the step to create a new top level
> key just for education, all cases should fit into the same scheme (i.e. if
> there is education=driving, there should also be education=dancing or
> education=gliding, but this would mean "education" is about the topic, and
> not about the level which would be implied by terms like "university" or
> "graduate" or "vocational").
>
> It should be clear, what the meaning of the "education" tags is (kind of
> classification/criterion). Level of education? Field of studies? Then there
> should be subtags with distinct meaning that cater each for a property
> (which must be isolated/defined).
>
> I would also expect suggestions for several more details that aren't covered
> yet, e.g. male, female / both-(etc.), mixed age classes or not or maybe even
> both (e.g. relevant for kindergarten), etc.
>
>
> What about the kind of specialization for general-education (e.g. classical
> education (latin and greek), scientific, artistic, etc.)?
>
> There's not much about a rationale, e.g. what do you consider "all
> educational facilities/institutions" and based on which criterion? E.g. what
> about a shooting club, aren't people going there to learn how to safely
> handle a gun, and how to use it / improve their ability? Similar things can
> be said about a lot of clubs / associations. When does it fall under
> "education"? This ambiguity together with instances like "university" (not
> just education) are the reason it could be generally worth to question a
> restructuring under a new "education" key according to this criterion.
>
>
>
>>
>> > Subtags how to tag the specialization (if any), about the degress you
>> > can get, institutes and faculties, etc.).
>> These tags already exist. Institutes and faculties are now covered in
>> "how to tag universities and mixed campuses" section of the proposal.
>
>
>
> it may be my cultural background, but I would not use the term "school" for
> parts of a university.
> The new relation type=institution remains mysterious, there are 7 instances
> of it in the db, but no documentation whatsoever. Is this a kind of
> "collection"? Can't we use a standard relation like "multipolygon" or "site"
> (ok, there's the common problem with universities that they have many
> different locations, often even single faculties have different locations,
> and it would be desirable to have a method to connect e.g. 2 site relations
> to one entity, I think sometimes we are doing this with operator and name
> tags, but it is not very reliable or consistent, something should indeed be
> introduced). Is "institution" only used for educational features? It would
> probably merit a whole new proposal.
> If college is "obsolete", does this mean colleges should be tagged as
> universities?
>
> What about police schools, or military schools? Are those handled with a
> "military" (e.g.) property on a university or vocational school element, or
> are they new main values?
>
> 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] Feature proposal - More RFC - Education Reform

[Erkin Alp Güney]

20-11-2017 14:03 tarihinde Martin Koppenhoefer yazdı:
>
>
> 2017-11-20 11:04 GMT+01:00 Erkin Alp Güney  >:
>
>
> > What about dance / music (singing / instruments, ...) / schools?
> > Academies? Conservatories? Professional schools?
> education=specialty
>
>
>
> I'm not convinced. Why is there an education=driving or
> administrative, but an academy of fine arts (similar to a university)
> or conservatory (might be similar to a university) go into the same
> category as a dance school (could be several levels, from the hobbyist
> leisure dance school to professional preparation) or the music school
> kids go 1 time a week? This seems complete arbitrary.
> IMHO a good proposal should not need a "catch-all" tag for the rest
> (i.e. what wasn't thought of earlier) which basically shifts
> meaningful tagging into a subtag. If we already undertake the step to
> create a new top level key just for education, all cases should fit
> into the same scheme (i.e. if there is education=driving, there should
> also be education=dancing or education=gliding, but this would mean
> "education" is about the topic, and not about the level which would be
> implied by terms like "university" or "graduate" or "vocational").
Advanced driving education programs in universities should be tagged
like other faculties. I understand that this proposal is weak in further
education aspect. I am going to add more values about further education.
>
> It should be clear, what the meaning of the "education" tags is (kind
> of classification/criterion). Level of education? Field of studies?
> Then there should be subtags with distinct meaning that cater each for
> a property (which must be isolated/defined).
>
> I would also expect suggestions for several more details that aren't
> covered yet, e.g. male, female / both-(etc.), mixed age classes or not
> or maybe even both (e.g. relevant for kindergarten), etc.
>
Going to add these.
> What about the kind of specialization for general-education (e.g.
> classical education (latin and greek), scientific, artistic, etc.)?
>
> There's not much about a rationale, e.g. what do you consider "all
> educational facilities/institutions" and based on which criterion?
> E.g. what about a shooting club, aren't people going there to learn
> how to safely handle a gun, and how to use it / improve their ability?
> Similar things can be said about a lot of clubs / associations. When
> does it fall under "education"? This ambiguity together with instances
> like "university" (not just education) are the reason it could be
> generally worth to question a restructuring under a new "education"
> key according to this criterion.
>
>  
>
> > Subtags how to tag the specialization (if any), about the degress you
> > can get, institutes and faculties, etc.).
> These tags already exist. Institutes and faculties are now covered in
> "how to tag universities and mixed campuses" section of the proposal.
>
>
>
> it may be my cultural background, but I would not use the term
> "school" for parts of a university.
> The new relation type=institution remains mysterious, there are 7
> instances of it in the db, but no documentation whatsoever. Is this a
> kind of "collection"? Can't we use a standard relation like
> "multipolygon" or "site" (ok, there's the common problem with
> universities that they have many different locations, often even
> single faculties have different locations, and it would be desirable
> to have a method to connect e.g. 2 site relations to one entity, I
> think sometimes we are doing this with operator and name tags, but it
> is not very reliable or consistent, something should indeed be
> introduced). Is "institution" only used for educational features? It
> would probably merit a whole new proposal.
> If college is "obsolete", does this mean colleges should be tagged as
> universities?
Yes, it is a collection. OpenStreetMap tagging should allow quick
searches on particular kinds of places. University colleges will now be
members of university relations and their buildings will be tagged
education=school+school_level=tertiary. Maybe even nested relations for
colleges if it has more than one campus.
>
> What about police schools, or military schools? Are those handled with
> a "military" (e.g.) property on a university or vocational school
> element, or are they new main values?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
They are usually in restricted access areas (student and staff only).
One cannot create a detailed map of these without the help of
government. military=school or education=university for building of
those you can map.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Education Reform

[Erkin Alp Güney]

No, I have expanded it to cover all educational institutions now,
primary focus being separating cram schools, as cram schools are usually
not allowed to award a diploma and they should not be listed when
searched for other education institutions.


20-11-2017 14:19 tarihinde Marc Gemis yazdı:
> What is the difference with the rejected Education 2.0 proposal from
> 2016 ? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Education_2.0
>
> Aren't we repeating all the arguments again ?
>
> m.
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - More RFC - Education Reform

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-11-20 12:21 GMT+01:00 Erkin Alp Güney :

>
> Yes, it is a collection. OpenStreetMap tagging should allow quick
> searches on particular kinds of places. University colleges will now be
> members of university relations and their buildings will be tagged
> education=school+school_level=tertiary. Maybe even nested relations for
> colleges if it has more than one campus.
>



 let me give an example: there is the faculty of architecture of UniRoma3
in Rome. They now have the administration in this building (plus some
offices/labs for phd students (=research) and some convention rooms that
are also used for public events):
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/202027322

And teach in these buildings:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/541879895

(But there are some administrative offices also in the second location).

How would we tag these / structure the relations?





> > What about police schools, or military schools? Are those handled with
> > a "military" (e.g.) property on a university or vocational school
> > element, or are they new main values?
> >
> >
> They are usually in restricted access areas (student and staff only).
> One cannot create a detailed map of these without the help of
> government. military=school or education=university for building of
> those you can map.



It's one thing to map the details like where the toilets are or the
shooting range, or the surveillance cams and security areas, and another to
just put a node or tag an areas as "police school", or "military academy".
The latter should be perfectly possibile without breaking the law. At least
they do advertise themselves typically in the internet, their existence in
many countries is not a secret, e.g.:
https://www.usma.edu/SitePages/Home.aspx

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - More RFC - Education Reform

[Erkin Alp Güney]

relation:

 type=site
 education=university
 name=Università degli Studi Roma Tre
 brand_name=UniRoma3

 campus:

 education=university
 name=Università degli Studi Roma Tre
 brand_name=UniRoma3

 both buildings:

 education=school
 school_level=tertiary
 name=Facoltà di Architettura
 faculty=architecture
 building=yes

 Both buildings and campuses would be members of the relation above.
 Campus and entity can automatically be distinguished as one is a way and
 other is a relation. alt_name can also be used instead of brand_name.
 operator=* implies sub-operators/franchisees, this cannot be case with
 sub-schools of an university.

 education=administrative is intended for buildings solely used for
 administrative duties, like educational ministries/directorates, student
 affairs complexes, university presidency offices.

 20-11-2017 15:52 tarihinde Martin Koppenhoefer yazdı:
 2017-11-20 12:21 GMT+01:00 Erkin Alp Güney  >:
>
>
> Yes, it is a collection. OpenStreetMap tagging should allow quick
> searches on particular kinds of places. University colleges will
> now be
> members of university relations and their buildings will be tagged
> education=school+school_level=tertiary. Maybe even nested
> relations for
> colleges if it has more than one campus.
>
>
>  let me give an example: there is the faculty of architecture of
> UniRoma3 in Rome. They now have the administration in this building
> (plus some offices/labs for phd students (=research) and some
 convention rooms that are also used for public events):
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/202027322
>
> And teach in these buildings:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/541879895
>
> (But there are some administrative offices also in the second location).
>
> How would we tag these / structure the relations?
>
> > What about police schools, or military schools? Are those
> handled with
> > a "military" (e.g.) property on a university or vocational school
> > element, or are they new main values?
> >
> They are usually in restricted access areas (student and staff only).
> One cannot create a detailed map of these without the help of
> government. military=school or education=university for building of
> those you can map.
>
> It's one thing to map the details like where the toilets are or the
> shooting range, or the surveillance cams and security areas, and
> another to just put a node or tag an areas as "police school", or
> "military academy". The latter should be perfectly possibile without
> breaking the law. At least they do advertise themselves typically in
> the internet, their existence in many countries is not a secret, e.g.:
> https://www.usma.edu/SitePages/Home.aspx
>
> Cheers,
> Martin

Yours, faithfully
Erkin Alp



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

[Tagging] Additional sub tags for survey mark

[Warin]

Hi,

There have been attempts in the past to add sub tags to 
man_made=survey_point 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurvey_point


To me there are 2 'types'. they are quite different;

Triangulation (or 'trig point') that are visible over quite some distance (say 
over 2 km),
used to triangulate a position without having to go to the mark. Usually a pole 
standing on top of a rise/hill.

Benchmarks that are visible on the surface but cannot be sighted at any 
distance. They can be small brass plaques fastened to the ground or engraved 
into stone.
These are used by surveyors by placing a tripod over the mark, thus have to be 
locally approached.

If consideration is given to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Categories_of_Objects#Control_Points_.28CATCTR.29

then expanding survey_point in a similar manner could be

survey_point:configuration=triangulation/benchmark

I use 'configuration' rather then 'type' or 'category' as it is more specific 
as to what is meant.

Any thoughts?
Are there any other configurations?




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

Re: [Tagging] Additional sub tags for survey mark

[Andrew Harvey]

Being able to distinguish different types of survey marks and points is
very much needed in OSM, it would be great to see this formalised on the
wiki.

I like the idea of modelling it after https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/
Seamarks/Categories_of_Objects#Control_Points_.28CATCTR.29 as that seems
well thought out.

I like the idea of using configuration as a sub key to survey_point, rather
than the undocumented by suggested tags of "triangulation_point=yes and
benchmark=yes".

My only question is the wiki page currently says "Since multiple survey
points are possible on one object (eg. a benchmark on a triangulation
point/pillar) then in order to avoid multiple values within one key, such
as a semicolon-delimited list in survey_point=*, it may be advisable to use
something like triangulation_point=yes and benchmark=yes to allow clean
coexistence of tags on one node.".

How would your proposal work with multiple survey points on the one object?
I've never come across this so not sure myself.

I think observation is a valid configuration, as I've seen observatories
used as the datum on old maps.

On 21 November 2017 at 10:47, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> There have been attempts in the past to add sub tags to
> man_made=survey_point https://wiki.openstreetmap.org
> /wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurvey_point
>
> To me there are 2 'types'. they are quite different;
>
> Triangulation (or 'trig point') that are visible over quite some distance
> (say over 2 km),
> used to triangulate a position without having to go to the mark. Usually a
> pole standing on top of a rise/hill.
>
> Benchmarks that are visible on the surface but cannot be sighted at any
> distance. They can be small brass plaques fastened to the ground or
> engraved into stone.
> These are used by surveyors by placing a tripod over the mark, thus have
> to be locally approached.
>
> If consideration is given to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org
> /wiki/Seamarks/Categories_of_Objects#Control_Points_.28CATCTR.29
>
> then expanding survey_point in a similar manner could be
>
> survey_point:configuration=triangulation/benchmark
>
> I use 'configuration' rather then 'type' or 'category' as it is more
> specific as to what is meant.
>
> Any thoughts?
> Are there any other configurations?
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Additional sub tags for survey mark

[Warin]

On 21-Nov-17 12:07 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
Being able to distinguish different types of survey marks and points 
is very much needed in OSM, it would be great to see this formalised 
on the wiki.


I like the idea of modelling it after 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Categories_of_Objects#Control_Points_.28CATCTR.29 
 
as that seems well thought out.


I like the idea of using configuration as a sub key to survey_point, 
rather than the undocumented by suggested tags of 
"triangulation_point=yes and benchmark=yes".


My only question is the wiki page currently says "Since multiple 
survey points are possible on one object (eg. a benchmark on a 
triangulation point/pillar) then in order to avoid multiple values 
within one key, such as a semicolon-delimited list in survey_point=*, 
it may be advisable to use something like triangulation_point=yes and 
benchmark=yes to allow clean coexistence of tags on one node.".


I think that triangulation points are not normally used this way? Where 
required the placement of the equipment on the exact centre of the point 
may mean that the structure needs to be disassembled.
I'd think any triangulation point could be used this way as a bench mark 
and they may all be equipped for it?
Might have this from one of Len Beadells' books? Or from talks with a 
past neighbour - a professional surveyor.




How would your proposal work with multiple survey points on the one 
object? I've never come across this so not sure myself.


Any professional knowledge on this would be welcome.



I think observation is a valid configuration, as I've seen 
observatories used as the datum on old maps.


Any place can be used as an 'observation point' .. so I don't see any 
reason to map something that has no ground presence?
Or is there some artefact left behind? And then would not that be a form 
of benchmark?




On 21 November 2017 at 10:47, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


Hi,

There have been attempts in the past to add sub tags to
man_made=survey_point
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurvey_point


To me there are 2 'types'. they are quite different;

Triangulation (or 'trig point') that are visible over quite some
distance (say over 2 km),
used to triangulate a position without having to go to the mark.
Usually a pole standing on top of a rise/hill.

Benchmarks that are visible on the surface but cannot be sighted
at any distance. They can be small brass plaques fastened to the
ground or engraved into stone.
These are used by surveyors by placing a tripod over the mark,
thus have to be locally approached.

If consideration is given to

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Categories_of_Objects#Control_Points_.28CATCTR.29



then expanding survey_point in a similar manner could be

survey_point:configuration=triangulation/benchmark

I use 'configuration' rather then 'type' or 'category' as it is
more specific as to what is meant.

Any thoughts?
Are there any other configurations?




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

Re: [Tagging] Additional sub tags for survey mark

[Andrew Harvey]

On 21 November 2017 at 12:29, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think that triangulation points are not normally used this way? Where
> required the placement of the equipment on the exact centre of the point
> may mean that the structure needs to be disassembled.
> I'd think any triangulation point could be used this way as a bench mark
> and they may all be equipped for it?
> Might have this from one of Len Beadells' books? Or from talks with a
> past neighbour - a professional surveyor.
>

I'm not sure, I've only seen two types the brass disk in the footpath,
gutter, road etc. and the rock or cement pillar with a plate on top,
sometimes with a black mental circle which can be seen from a distance.
Your proposed tags provides a way to distinguish these.


> Any place can be used as an 'observation point' .. so I don't see any
> reason to map something that has no ground presence?
> Or is there some artefact left behind? And then would not that be a form
> of benchmark?
>

It was more that maps refer back to this observation station, but fair
point, especially since nothing on the ground to verify that. I'm not too
fussed about this.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Additional sub tags for survey mark

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 21 November 2017 at 12:48, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure, I've only seen two types the brass disk in the footpath,
> gutter, road etc. and the rock or cement pillar with a plate on top,
> sometimes with a black mental circle which can be seen from a distance.
> Your proposed tags provides a way to distinguish these.
>

Sometimes slight variation in that the disk has been set into a concrete
block on a hill etc, but the same for mapping purposes.

Great idea to pursue this concept

Thanks

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