Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

2018-08-07 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On 8 August 2018 at 05:00, Robert Szczepanek wrote: > > > Before making any changes in wiki I would like to find final agreement on > that topic. > "Flood level" (highest water table) is usually only one of several > informations we can find on "flood mark". Others can be date of flood, > inscript

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

2018-08-07 Thread Robert Szczepanek
W dniu 06.08.2018 o 01:48, Warin pisze: On 06/08/18 09:01, Dave Swarthout wrote: > I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water to be a waterways thing ie the high tide mark. Before making any changes in wi

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

2018-08-05 Thread Warin
On 06/08/18 09:01, Dave Swarthout wrote: > I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water to be a waterways thing ie the high tide mark. +1 Very sensible IMO. Yes. Complication .. a historic king tide combi

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

2018-08-05 Thread Dave Swarthout
> I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water to be a waterways thing ie the high tide mark. +1 Very sensible IMO. On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 2:59 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > On 6 August 2018 at 02:48, R

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

2018-08-05 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
On 6 August 2018 at 02:48, Robert Szczepanek wrote: > 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

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

2018-08-05 Thread Robert Szczepanek
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

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

2018-08-05 Thread Yves
Spotted thanks to Osmand: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2401935175 Yves Le 5 août 2018 12:23:40 GMT+02:00, Volker Schmidt a écrit : >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 ordinar

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

2018-08-05 Thread Volker Schmidt
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 based on the regular tides in the area. A flood mark wou

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

2018-08-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 3. Aug 2018, at 18:03, Robert Szczepanek wrote: > > Indeed not all flood marks are really old/historic. But that threshold is > probably very fuzzy. I would put it like this: although they are not all old, they are all history related (they show a historic flood leve

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

2018-08-03 Thread Robert Szczepanek
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

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

2018-08-03 Thread Robert Szczepanek
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=highw

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

2018-07-26 Thread Warin
On 26/07/18 20:29, Andrew Davidson wrote: On 25/07/18 22:05, Robert Szczepanek wrote: Question 1: a/ flood_mark b/ high_water_mark c/ highwater_mark A. High water mark is the level that the water got to, so if you marked that it would be a high water mark marker Question 2: Which ta

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

2018-07-26 Thread Andrew Davidson
On 25/07/18 22:05, Robert Szczepanek wrote: Question 1: a/ flood_mark b/ high_water_mark c/ highwater_mark A. High water mark is the level that the water got to, so if you marked that it would be a high water mark marker Question 2: Which tagging convention should we follow: a

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

2018-07-25 Thread Robert Szczepanek
Right Phil, thanks for this remark. Tides are rather short-term and more predictable water table variations. As such, seldom marked with physical signs. In Poland we found 0 within 262. High water mark (boundary) is probably more legal term - demarcation of water/land mainly in coastal zones.

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

2018-07-25 Thread Philip Barnes
High water is commonly used in terms of tides. Phil (trigpoint) On 25 July 2018 13:05:56 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 ide