2012/10/28 Peter Wendorff <wendo...@uni-paderborn.de>: > I would suggest to add a short rationale in the "proposed key" section.
OK I added a few lines. > I think, the following arguments were useful (as long as it's carefully > described not to be requirements): > - these objects often are landmarks (let's meet under the clock, after the > advertising column turn right...) > - often they are quite prominent > > Reading your proposal and the amenity=clock page together, I miss the > "suggested combination" of both for the common case of public clocks > surrounded by or mounted together with advertising ... cubes? (compare > example #1 on the clocks page). > Probably that cubic thing is a candidate for an additional advertising value > as well? (but I have no idea, what the name could be and if it's known > enough to count as an own type. advertisement=sign faces=4? Surely, here it would be a problem to have faces=4 and not knowing if this refered to the clock or to the sign, so probably you would have to use layers and 2 distinct OSM objects for this one pole with clock and sign. Personally I am not after those smaller signs and stuff but would like to tag huge and dominant advertising. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
