Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency=Rescue Stations

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 12:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Please visit https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rescue_Stations & have a > look. > Thinking about this further, I'm thinking that Rescue Services may be better than Rescue Stations? I've also realised that Stations / Services is only a

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

Hi everyone, mostly for European use (I think), I propose a new node type barrier, namely "guard stone": A guard stone is in most cases a stone built onto or into the corner of a building or wall. They are usually found on either side of an entrance to a laneway or gateway. Guard stones

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 21:28, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: mostly for European use (I think), I propose a new node type barrier, > namely "guard stone": > Your proposal says these should be tagged historic=yes. Historic is not a synonym for old, or disused, or even historical. Historic means tha

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

Yes, that tag is a good idea. But, it is not a barrier on the way, but a single object off the way. Normally, but not always they come in pairs, but it does not always come in pairs. They are often corner stones. When there is a pair, i.e. one on each side, it would make sense to see it as a barrie

[Tagging] Many historic=wayside_cross are not historic

I am sure someone has made this observation before me: Many historic=wayside_cross and historic=wayside_shrine are not historic objects in the sense of the definition of the wiki page Historic which reads: "The historic

Re: [Tagging] Many historic=wayside_cross are not historic

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 22:33, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I am sure someone has made this observation before me: > We rehash this frequently. :) Many historic=wayside_cross and historic=wayside_shrine are not historic > objects in the sense of the definition of the wiki page Historic >

Re: [Tagging] Many historic=wayside_cross are not historic

Italy is very religious (roman catholic). Just in the Veneto region there are 2045 nodes + 532 polygons tagged as wayside crosses or shrines. That includes everything from a homemade little altar on the fence of a private home to a minute chapel-like shrine on a minor road crossing that most likely

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

I think the direction tag should be described as optional if the node is on a building way. From the description given the direction of most of these will be "away from the building". On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 22:16, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Yes, that tag is a good idea. > But, it is not a barrier on

Re: [Tagging] Many historic=wayside_cross are not historic

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 23:11, Volker Schmidt wrote: > That includes everything from a homemade little altar on the fence of a > private home to a minute chapel-like shrine on a minor road crossing that > most likely sits on top of a Roman shrine for the local water goddess. > > My real question i

[Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

Following on from comments made in regard to deprecating both emergency= & amenity=coast_guard & replacing them with military=coast_guard: On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 02:01, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > This is probably a US-centric viewpoint, but I note that there is a > general lack of tagging unde

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 10:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > I have just posted a new proposal re Military Bases: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_bases > But when I look at it, it's saying it's in Inactive status so not sure what I've done there? Suggestions pleas

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

I fixed that for you, it should just be status=proposed, and the template does the rest of the magic! On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 7:26 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 10:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote: > >> >> I have just posted a new proposal re Military Bases: >> https:/

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 10:33, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > I fixed that for you, it should just be status=proposed, and the template > does the rest of the magic! > Thanks, Brian! Another one to lock away in memory :-) Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mail

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

Brian came up with a suggestion that bases also be tagged with an appropriate admin level (2 / 4) to show at which level of Government they are controlled. Just wondering - I know that the US has State controlled forces eg National Guard, but are there any / many other countries that have forces c

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

This is an interesting idea. But the current proposal only provides a way to tag the military service branch of a military=base feature (which is usually also landuse=military). It might be better if there were a way to tag the branch for any sort of military feature, including military=office, m