you deleted one of the more important parts of this relation IMHO: the
label-node which would serve as a suggested label placement. I made
some of these relations and I was never sure, which objects I should
put into the relation (as for instance the spatial configuration
already says that everythi
2011/2/2 Daniel Sabo :
> In this specific case it seems safe to convert capital=true -> capital=yes,
> but the other values I'm less sure what they were intending.
I checked all of them manually with Josm and Wikipedia. They were all
capitals of Philippine Provinces, so capital=yes would have be
See comments inline below:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:29 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> you deleted one of the more important parts of this relation IMHO: the
> label-node which would serve as a suggested label placement.
Okay, I added this one back, though I'm not fond of it myself. I don't
lik
2011/2/1 Johan Jönsson :
> M∡rtin Koppenhoefer writes:
> No key is really spot-on, well maybe landmark but that is used on seamaps to
> mark prominent features on the horizon.
IMHO man_made is, it is used for towers and windmills, and I see
obelisks somehow in this range of things.
> So how to
2011/2/2 Steve Bennett :
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:35 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> This could be a way, but I am not yet convinced. Churches, temples and
>> towers are also monuments, but we don't tag them currently as subtypes
>> of monument. Indeed the tag historic=monument is very vagu
I am on the same page as you Martin, we should tag the obelisks as
the prominent features they are.
man_made seem to be the most neutral key,
but landmark is tempting.
I suggested:
man_made=column
+ column=obelisk
What I meant was
man_made="pointy long massive not natural freestanding thing"
Obelisks are also fairly common as grave markers, although you would probably
tag those differently than obelisks raised to commemorate some event.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
>From :mailto:joha...@goteborg.cc
Date :Wed Feb 02 13:34:28 America/
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 ar
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:58 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> 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.
+1
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
ht
