8 at 2:59 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 6 August 2018 at 02:48, Robert Szczepanek mailto:rob...@szczepanek.pl>> wrote:
W dniu 05.08.2018 o 12:23, Volker Schmidt pisze:
Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily th
W dniu 05.08.2018 o 12:23, Volker Schmidt pisze:
Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the same thing.
Read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark
to get the gist.
There are ordinary high water marks (and I suppose also the opposite,
ordinary low water marks) which are base
W dniu 26.07.2018 o 12:43, Warin pisze:
Some flood marks carry a number of different heights from different
dates. Would be good to map those too.
We map them and split into several nodes at the same place:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4381386159
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4381386
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
:05:56 BST, Robert Szczepanek
wrote:
Hi all,
We work on flood marks project [13] and your opinion on proper tagging
is crucial for us, as database of existing features is based on OSM
records. We have identified probably most of existing marks in Poland,
but would like
Hi all,
We work on flood marks project [13] and your opinion on proper tagging
is crucial for us, as database of existing features is based on OSM
records. We have identified probably most of existing marks in Poland,
but would like to finally unify tagging within OSM project.
Both terms (fl
