> I don't get the right term here. I see only 222 items for power=marker and > nothing for power:marker=*. Which one are you refering to with 35k uses > please?
Probably pipeline=marker, used 35k times: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=pipeline&value=marker > Why not using marker=* to give its nature and another key utility=* with > values... Because most mappers only add 1 tag to each new object. (Folks like you and me are an exception - and a year ago, when I was new at this, I only usually added 1 tag per feature). If an object can be described with one tag, it's better to do this and create several tags, (e.g. pipeline=marker, power=marker) rather than requiring each object to be tagged with 2 or 3 or 4 tags. This saves mapper time and makes sure that each object is fully described. - Joseph On 9/7/19, François Lacombe <fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Thank you for yout contributions > > Le ven. 6 sept. 2019 à 09:13, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> > a écrit : > >> I'm still opposed to this proposal: >> > > Answers provided at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Utility_markers_proposal#Oppose_deprecating_pipeline.3Dmarker_and_marker.3Dstone > > Le ven. 6 sept. 2019 à 09:18, Jez Nicholson <jez.nichol...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > >> Arriving fresh to a proposal, my first action would be to look at what is >> currently in OSM. There are 6,043 "marker"="stone", which is 81.5% of the >> usage of "marker" in OSM. I would expect the proposal to support current >> usage. >> > I respectably disagree on that point. > Biggest problem is that current usage isn't documented, and may not have > been reviewed like we are doing right now. > > This proposal aims to define values for marker=* to describe utility > markers. > Despite marker=stone may be unconsistent with what is proposed, it doesn't > make it incompatible and this proposal only notices this fact without > thinking of deprecating it. > > I would then look at "power":"marker" and be very concerned to see 35,288 >> tags. That's a very strong existing usage. You might be lucky that power >> markers aren't as useful to render as power lines, etc. >> https://openinframap.org/#12.2/49.49246/0.21175 >> > I don't get the right term here. I see only 222 items for power=marker and > nothing for power:marker=* > Which one are you refering to with 35k uses please? > > One of the goals is precisely to get a comprehensive render with marker=* > for many kind of markers, not only pipeline ones. > > Le ven. 6 sept. 2019 à 12:20, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > a écrit : > >> I would rather have expected a generic description of the marker, like >> marker= >> post >> cone >> sign >> ... >> aerial_marker (maybe this should be a property, not a type? This seems to >> be a quite interesting property for our context) >> > > Ok this one is really interesting. > Why not using marker=* to give its nature and another key utility=* with > values "gas", "power", "telecom", "water"... ? > Seems it is already used: > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/utility#values > > marker=* + utility=* give a "utility marker", right? > > All the best > > François > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
