Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
Am 29.11.2013 13:03, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland: I think we live in different universes. This is the kind of stuff I am interested in: http://webcam.svorka.net/bollen/ http://webcam.sollia.net/image.jpg A webcam is a webcam. This example is also called a weathercam: http://www.wetter.tv/de/webcams/riegelsberg_webcam Is it really? You never know. Any webcam is a surveillance cam. The purpose and details of surveillance may vary. Zecke. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam
Am 02.12.2013 14:52, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
2013/12/2 Pieren mailto:pier...@gmail.com>>
website=*('url' is deprecated in the wiki)
is it? The long standing interpretation was that "website" is about
the official website of a feature, while "url" is just another / some
webpage.
I heared it also as Pieren wrote. URL should be replaced by website for
better readability by non-techies.
Zecke
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Religious Places that belongs to multiple Religion
Semicolons are the perfect measure to denote a feature that has more than one value. It is important to use it, even if renderers are reluctant to implement it. The more it is used, the higher the pressure to them to implement it. Zecke Am 13.01.2014 10:28, schrieb Pieren: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote: Just use the semi-colon to separate the values: religion=religion1;religion2;;religionX This is the short answer. But we have seen in the past that semi-colon, aggregated values are finally almost never used. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Religious Places that belongs to multiple Religion
Am 13.01.2014 23:18, schrieb André Pirard: I also would feel like accepting the semicolon, but after thinking twice I notice that religion=religion1;religion2;;religion denomination=denomination1;denomination2 would become even more problematic already. Why? Of course, you must include the dependencies and keep in mind that religion=religion1 denomination=d1 is just an abbreviation for religion=religion1 religion1:denomination=d1 As soon as the short form isn't unique anymore you have to return to the full fleshed form. Here that would be religion=religion1;religion2;;religion n religion1:denomination= religion2:denomination= (not all religions have denominations necessarily). Your problem is like a shop that sells many kinds of goods, a building that serves many purposes, a water that can be of many types, a crossing that's in fact a passage across or along any way, a dam that is not a circular waterway, etc... I think they all have the same generic solution. And so it is! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Architectural Monuments - ideas?
> I'm currently importing a list of Architectural Monuments into OSM. Whatever you are meaning with "architectural monuments", please don't mix the term with monuments as defined in osm ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dmonument , see also the german page wich is more detailed). A monument is (like the smaller memorial) *built to remember *and show respect to a person or group of people or to a historic event. Maybe you are referring to protected buildings in the sense of (world, national, regional, local) heritage - please see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/heritage Even if it's only a draft, it is a de facto standard and broadly used. See for example the historical objects map: http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html Regards, Zecke ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tree shrines
I suppose you were in contact with Lutz. Our policy is to render what's mapped and in that be quick to market. If there's a tagging found sufficiently often it is considered for inclusion in the historic map. The wiki page "map features" describes what kind of tagging is depicted in OUR map. It does not describe what some pseudo-official tagging proposal came up to. We gave up in waiting for tagging discussions coming to a final solution. Usually they tend to become endless discussions without a final consensus. And I definitely don't consider 10-20 positive votes for a successful proposal to be in any way representative for the community of tens of thousands of active mappers or more. However, when a proposal leads to another tagging being accepted by the community in a considerable way we are eager to include it on our map. Cheers, Zecke ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] About new landuses and superiority of cascading tag schemes
Am 25.07.2014 16:28, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: I partly agree. plant_nursery could indeed become a subtag of farmland, as could be greenhouse horticulture, but I do agree less for mining and salt_pond. landuse=mine is in line with landuse=quarry (for open pit mining it might be a subgroup of quarry?). salt_ponds could also be considered a subtype of farmland (maybe depends on the case/scale). I partly agree... landuse=mine is an undefined Tag, so it is not clear what is meant here. In case of underground mining I would agree to have it being a subtag of landuse=industrial, as the surface installations could be of a similar category. In case of surface mining however it is a characteristic of its own, which comes close to quarry. However furthermore I would prefer to have it the other way round, quarry being a special case of surface_mining: landuse=surface_mining resource=limestone, marble, sand (or whatever) (which implies a quarry) Cheers, Zecke ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] cliffs and embankents or anything else
Currently in OSM we have two tags to describe some kind of slope that also get rendered in the mapnik chart and a couple of others: natural=cliff embankment (in the form man_made=embankment (feature) and embankment=yes (attribute)) Is this categorisation sufficient for any type of slope? There's the question whether "natural" is appropriate as there are also man made steep slopes. And there recvently arose the question whether the english term "embankment" only covers slopes beside a road/railroad/river etc. or a general slope. The wiki defines embankments as accompanying a line object (road/railroad/river). For these the attribute form embankment=* is foreseen. However it only defines embankment=yes, ignoring the fact that an embankment con be only one-sided (left or right). This kind of tagging is also used. There are cases where one needs to map slopes beside a line object that itself is man_made=*. So the slope should be an attribute to the line. Would embankment=yes/right/left/both be the correct tag in your opinion? Regards, Zecke ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cliffs and embankents or anything else
Am 04.09.2014 15:55, schrieb Friedrich Volkmann: This is only possible if the man made embankment is inside a larger natural slope. So the embankment is not as notable a landscape component as compared to freestanding embankments in the plains. I'm dealing with spoil heaps. These are man_made but that's not the problem here. Needs? No mapper that I am aware of is forced to map anything. They usually map what they believe is useful. OK, don't want philosophical discussions. A spoil heap is often partially limited by more or less steep slopes. I want to map these because they are important landmarks. And a renderer should be able to render these appropriately. There are at least 3 aspects of that question: 1) The linguistic aspect: whether the word "embankment" suits assymetric profiles. Yes. And I'd say so. 2) The syntactic aspect: what's the differece between embankment=yes and =both? That's a minor problem (I introduced "both" in my email to point out that it could be on either side of the line object). 3) The usage aspect: Do we really want to tag all mountain roads embankment=left + cutting=right? Hey, we have DEMs nowadays, and everybody knows that there are slopes on the mountains. I'm not speaking of roads (as is done in the wiki) but in more general terms of line objects. In fact I'm not dealing with roads. Any mapper is free to map as many details is he likes. Cheers, Zecke ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cliffs and embankents or anything else
Am 04.09.2014 20:54, schrieb Friedrich Volkmann: By the way, embankment=left/right won't work for spoil heaps, because they are not linear features. Not totally correct. Spoil heaps can be mapped as unclosed lines when they are attached to a (natural) mountain. Then only the visible part of the contour will be mapped as a line and that part coincides with the slope. Zecke ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cliffs and embankents or anything else
Am 04.09.2014 22:09, schrieb Friedrich Volkmann: On 04.09.2014 21:19, Zecke wrote: Spoil heaps can be mapped as unclosed lines when they are attached to a (natural) mountain. Then only the visible part of the contour will be mapped as a line This does not sound right. Spoil heaps are areas and should be mapped as such, or abstracted to a node when you don't know the dimensions. Spoil heaps (positive landform) are the complement of quarries (negative landform). I have never seen a quarry mapped as a line. I'm mainly dealing with historic mining. Spoil heaps of historic mining however are very real. And they often developed directly in front of an adit at the base or slope of a mountain. I've seen a lot of them and because of their origination history they are at the flank of a mountain. Mapping of historic spoil heaps is at its beginning that is why I started this discussion. And I would say70% of them I would map as a line, 30% as an area because its surroundings are clear. But even for the area type I would need a way to map the slope as not every spoil heap has steep slopes. Discussion was about started slopes, not about spoil heaps. Zecke ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Various alt_name values?
Am 23.11.2014 18:20, schrieb Lukas Sommer: Would a feature proposal be a good way to get there? No need to do so. The semi-colon is the accepted way to separate multi values in cases where there's no other scheme defined. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator Cheers, Zecke ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] man_made=adit_entrance
Am 07.12.2014 23:14, schrieb Warin: And tags for other mine entrance types? Would it not be better to have man_made=mine_entrance type=adit etc What other types do you mean? There are adits and mineshafts, both exist as man_made=*. And I doubt if anybody would really consider a mineshaft as an "entrance" where you step in. It will be a unique experience! There are in fact forms in between adits and mineshafts which is all more or less non vertical shafts. I don't know english words for that but up to now most of them have either been tagged as adits (when you can step in) or as mineshafts (when you can't). Cheers, Zecke ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Watermill attributes
Am 13.12.2014 12:44, schrieb Volker Schmidt: I like watermills and I would like to be able to find the "nice" ones on the map. Have a look here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Historical_Objects/Karteneigenschaften#Wassermuehle The corresponding map: http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/ Cheers, Zecke ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Watermill attributes
Am 13.12.2014 16:23, schrieb Volker Schmidt: Compliments for the map. In fact I knew it already. That is the type of map that would profit from additional tagging for watermills, like number of wheels. Fell free to invent taggings. If there should be enough use by the mappers we might add different symbols. However I have the feeling that it should be sufficient to map one symbol for watermills and show the details in the "details" popup tab. As for citywalls: We interprete the term historic=* as "being of historic relevance" in contrast to "former". Sometimes it cannot be separated clearly and we are aware of the different types of usage of "historic" in the OSM community. We have to live with it. So we see no problem in having an existic roman bridge tagged as historic. In fact we recommend to do so. I remember the discussion came up for citywalls recently whether we should render them even if they aren't tagged as historic. Have to check on that. Cheers Zecke ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Watermill attributes
Coming back to city walls. Our walls in Padova are massive, were built mid 1500 and are still there. They are at present not tagged "historic" and hence don't show up on the history map. Thanks Volker for pointing us at that. The citywalls are tagged correctly. However there was a bug in our selection mechanism which prevented them from being rendered as such. This should be fixed by now. http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/?zoom=14&lat=45.40335&lon=11.88057&layers=BFFFTFFFTFFFT Cheers, Zecke ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] city walls
"interesting to map dismantled city gates as historic=city_gate" It is OK to map ruins/remmants, archeological site - but note that completely destroyed objects should NOT be mapped. typically city gates have had such a huge impact on the structure of cities that they normally persist even if there is nothing left in physical terms. The roads that once passed the gates are still the "arterial" roads, the squares are still named after the gates (typically) and the whole area often still has that name (e.g. referring here to my birth town Tübingen, where everybody would still know "Neckartor" (dismantled 1804), "Lustnauer Tor" or "Haagtor" (and 2 others, all of which non-existent physically but very existent in daily life/communication, e.g. to set up a place to meet)). Actually we recommend to map such objects with the razed: prefix for objects that once existed but now there are only barely remnants or even indirect indications thereof. As long as there is a historical interest in them and there is a slight indication of its position we are willing to map them in the historic map. Cheers, Zecke ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] man_made=adit_entrance
Am 16.12.2014 19:19, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
2014-12-09 16:39 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann <mailto:b...@volki.at>>:
I get the point. However, man_made=adit has been defined in the
wiki to be
the entrance only, since August 2010. The tag is used 2309 times
that way,
i.e. on nodes. It does not seem right to re-define a tag that has
been in
use for so long.
well, an "entrance" doesn't have to be a door or door like opening, an
entrance to a mine could well be a horizontal passage that leads to
the actual "digging zone", or am I missinterpreting this?
Here I would also opt to leave adit with the meaning it has for years
now. The more as the english wikipedia seems to support this definition
(cannot judge whether this is correct). There's just no need to redefine
well established tags without need. And I would see only the opening
gate (Portal, Stolleneingang) as the entrance, not the passage (Stollen)
itself that leads to the digging zone ("Abbauort") which might be
extended but which also might be the dead end. The passage might be
quite long and I see no reason to call it an entrance.
Cheers
Zecke
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic tower
Am 19.03.2015 21:15, schrieb Jaume Figueras i Jové: Hi, I can't find in the wiki how to correctly tag an historical tower, usually used as a defensive building. In that place there has never been a castle nor was part of a castle. You can find images of the specimens I doubt at [1] and [2]. I'm thinking to use man_made=tower historic=yes, but IMHO I think it's more correct to use historic=tower (that does not appear in the wiki). Both taggings are accepted. The historic map [1] shows both. A documentation of which tags are interpreted can be found here [2]. Cheers, Zecke [1] http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historical_Objects/Map_Properties#Historischer_Turm ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What about a disused quarry and historic surface mining?
Artificial rock faces in quarries and open pit mines, called berms, are created due to blasting. The faces are typically inclined 60-70° with drops of max. a few tenth of meters. This fundamental difference might be best taken into account by using man_made=embankment for these. I have to contradict in one point. I know of a lot of former and present quarries where the faces are inclined 90° and ten'ths of meters high. Maybe this is not so much the point for open pit mines. But tagging should be ready to cope with non-natural steep faces. I see no problem however in using some man_made key for this. "embankment" might be misleading, however. What about man_made=cliff for non-natural steep drops? The renderer then could decide whether to choose differentiating drawing. (Most probably he won't do so). Cheers, Carsten ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Orientation of an adit?
Please note that www.historic.place displays the orientation of adits. As it can be seen here: http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html?zoom=17&lat=49.27361&lon=6.9515&select=n2218896180&pid=KmHaSaHe We evaluate the direction tag, Please note that the direction is seen from the underground gallery outwards. See also: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:direction Regards, Carsten Am 10.03.2017 um 14:48 schrieb Tod Fitch: There are a number of abandoned adits and mine shafts in an area I’ve done some mapping in. When looking at old USGS topographic maps of the area, I’ve noticed that they used to align their symbol for an adit to show its orientation. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Orientation of an adit?
Am 10.03.2017 20:04, schrieb Mike Thompson: On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Kevin Kenny mailto:kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com>> wrote: I can just now hear, nevertheless, a chorus asserting that the information is available by other means and therefore does not belong in OSM. An adit or a cave entrance (that isn't a sinkhole) pretty much has to go into a hillside, and a waterfall or a dam flows downhill, so with information about local topography, the direction can be determined. In many parts of the world there may not be elevation data with an open license of suitable resolution to make this determination for an adit. It's not true that an adit always enters the hill in slope direction. I know of many adits entering at an angle. So this approach does not really help. We decided to use a different symbol for adits without direction information than for directed adits. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag for mining "prospect"
Am 12.03.2017 00:24, schrieb Tod Fitch: Fresh from correcting tagging on some adits, I realize that I have probably miss-tagged some other features as mine shafts. In the semi-arid area with a history of mining that I am trying to add details to, there are man made features the old USGS topo maps called a “prospect”. These are places where someone has done some exploratory digging in search of ore but abandoned the site after only going down a couple of meters or less. So they aren’t really mine shafts, though if the vein paid out they might have developed into one. A mining hole in the bottom is worth mapping as soon as you could fall in. If it never came into service, use mineshaft_type=exploration. There are many shafts, even hundreds of meters deep that never found ore. There are also shafts that were in service as airshafts only a few meters deep. The same holds true for adits. adit_type is not documented but used quite a few times. Then there is depth=xxx so you could specify whether its hundreds of meters or just quite a few meters deep. A drift mining adit 5 meters deep could be still used as a rain shelter. Regards, Carsten ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] The direction=* tag
Am 16.03.2017 05:13, schrieb Tod Fitch: It seems to me that the first and the third definitions should be split into separate tags with the second definition deprecated. I agree that this situation is suboptimal. The second meaning has nothing to do with a direction but with a sense of rotation. So, I agree it should be dropped first, if any. Since the “forward” and “backward” values are most used, it may be reasonable to keep the third definition of that tag even though it is inconsistent with “traffic_signals:direction”. I don't agree. The uses of direction for forward/backward are in the same magnitude of order as for compass directions. A factor of 2 is not relevant. Both uses have their tradition and they are not likely to be mixed. The compass thing has more of an absolute direction than the forward/backward one, as it only specifies a binary feature relative to another oriented feature. Best regards, Carsten ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] change recommendation from "depth" to "length" for the adit length?
When I started mapping adits I also felt that "length" would fit better than "depth". However at that time length and depth were similar in usage. Cheers, Zecke ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] change recommendation from "depth" to "length" for the adit length?
Am 15.05.2017 um 11:47 schrieb Michal Fabík: Shouldn't the tag be "man_made=adit_portal" Why not just man_made=adit_entrance? I'm not sure I'd call a crudely dug opening (like the one in the picture on the Wiki page) a portal. (Maybe it's just me.) An "adit" is by definition an /entrance /to a subterranean gallery or drift. No need to enforce this by inventing new tags that are just a tautology. man_made=adit is a well-established and well-defined tag. There are people who already map the gallery indicated by the adit, using layer=-1 or similar. I personally object this. Cheers, Carsten ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] change recommendation from "depth" to "length" for the adit length?
Am 15.05.2017 um 14:37 schrieb Andy Townsend: On 15/05/2017 12:59, Zecke wrote: An "adit" is by definition an /entrance /to a subterranean gallery or drift. Er, no - at least not according to my understanding of the term as it is used locally to me in England. Well, I'm no native English speaker, so I have to rely on what they're saying. I found however: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adit So they write: An *adit* (from Latin /aditus/, entrance)^[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adit#cite_note-ac-1> is an entrance to an underground mine <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_mine> which is horizontal or nearly horizontal,^[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adit#cite_note-2> by which the mine can be entered, drained of water,^[3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adit#cite_note-3> ventilated, and minerals extracted at the lowest convenient level. Maybe I misinterpreted this. Carsten ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] change recommendation from "depth" to "length" for the adit length?
Am 15.05.2017 um 14:39 schrieb Michal Fabík: I did a quick overpass search for ways tagged as adits and some of the cases are interesting, to say the least: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/108932116 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33139563 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/220961406 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/372881519 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/134806997 I agree, these are for sure just wrongly tagged. Carsten ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] change recommendation from "depth" to "length" for the adit length?
Am 15.05.2017 um 14:37 schrieb Andy Townsend: On 15/05/2017 12:59, Zecke wrote: An "adit" is by definition an /entrance /to a subterranean gallery or drift. Er, no - at least not according to my understanding of the term as it is used locally to me in England. Well, after some googling it seems you're right and the wikipedia article is just a bit misleading. In fact it's just a copy from encyclopedia britannica (or vice versa?). Comparing adits with drifts and galleries it seems an adit always has a surface end whereas the others can have so but do not need? So drift or gallery are more general and adit is more specific? Anyway the term adit seems to be used often enough as a synonym for the adit mouth, probably as most people don't have access to the interior. Same in German, where people are talking about "Stollen" when they just mean the "Stollenmundloch" So I would be very reluctant to re-defining the established OSM tagging here. Cheers, Carsten ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] change recommendation from "depth" to "length" for the adit length?
Am 15.05.2017 um 16:04 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: how would you tag the adit then? (I'm asking for the feature that is described in the wiki: a horizontal or almost horizontal tunnel going into the underground) I wouldn't map that at all. And if so, a tunnel=yes, layer=-1 should describe all that's necessary. I also see no reason to distinguish between an adit (as tunnel) and a drift when tagging. Where does the adit end and the drift begin? First crossing? So when really beginning to start a tagging scheme for underground mining facilities a would stay with the general terms drift or gallery for the ways, knowning that one could also name it an adit, if it has a surface end. Carsten ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Photo links in OSM
Am 11.06.2013 23:19, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: Here is image=File:Dresden Theaterplatz 138.JPG wouldn't it be better to have all values tagged according to the same rules, i.e. use a fully qualified url for the image tag? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dresden_Theaterplatz_138.JPG I fully agree. There's actually no need for distinction of image origin in the tagging scheme. Any distinction (as is done with the historical map) could by done by easily filtering the URL parts. (With the historical map, only some origins like wikimedia and flickr are used to create thumbnails - for copyright reasons). Something I still miss in the image discussion (especially int the context of the historical map) is a possibility to distinguish between an actual image (present time) and an image of former times. Of course, a lifecycle relation would solve this problem but we all know it is not yet widely adopted, alas. So I suggest something like: image=image with no timestamp image:present= recent image (ok, that's also rather fuzzy but should be sufficient as it will be used only when another older image be given, too) image:ancient= ancient image of the object image:= dated image, where date format undergoes the rules described e.g. here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:start_date (only such date formats without blanks should be used - maybe we need a rework of the date format rules) Regards, Zecke ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Photo links in OSM
Am 12.06.2013 14:36, schrieb Richard Welty: i'm not at all enthusiastic about having a variable value like that as a key Well, I understand your concern. I would much prefer a lifecycle relation or even a data model supporting key-value lists as a valid value. I also see much resistance to historic data in OSM (not only here, also in forum discussions - it's not at all my opinion). What I do not understand is, why is 3D widely accepted? It even relies on a wiki page, referred to as "4D"!!! ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:OSM-4D ). So, historic data should have the same acceptance as 3D objects. As far as I see, image:present and image:ancient do not induce the same opposition as image:date? I could live with that. Kind regards, Zecke ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
