Unfortunately a photo was not provided so we only had the original description to go on.. In OSM there is the rule-of-thumb of a single real-life object being mapped to a single OSM object. Are they the same object with two functions, or are they two objects?
I have a rather scientific way of looking at such discussions. The bottom line is that there is no right and wrong in OSM, just a bunch of opinions. I agree, this case "can" be represented by a new tag. Whether it is wise, or optimal, is a matter for discussion. If someone wants to see it in a particular way, then they are free to do so. //colin On 2016-02-06 18:22, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > >> Am 06.02.2016 um 16:17 schrieb Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: >> >> If one function is clearly the primary function of the location (e.g. >> mounting post, cabinet or whatever) then the secondary function is sometimes >> tagged differently, e.g. emergency=phone, defibrillator=yes > > it would surely be a "bit" of a stretch to state that the cabinet or the > mounting post were the primary functions. (emergency=defibrillator, > cabinet=yes). I agree that formally two unconnected nodes at "the same" > location don't say it's a combined object, but IMHO the functions would still > be represented well (because even if it's a combined object, a phone and an > aed are different things with nothing in common besides maybe being > integrated into one housing). If this is a common typology and especially if > you want to express that it is a combined installation, it might merit its > own tag (phone_and_defi...) > > cheers > Martin > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
