On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 00:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Question of my own - is there any particular reason that a berm couldn't > just be rendered the same as a wall? > That question prompts another question. Why render it as a wall? Since a berm is a type of embankment, why not render it as an embankment? Either way, if you render it the same as an existing object, and it serves the same purpose as an existing object, the carto people are likely to veto it under their "no synonyms" rule. Even if you persuade the carto people to render berms, it will go on their long to-do list and may take a long time to appear. You also have the problem of having to inspect a lot of existing embankments to see if some of them should be retagged as berms. And the problem of mappers, perhaps newbies, wondering what the difference between the two is. Others have proposed a berm=* subtag to differentiate types of berms. Why not, instead, use a subtag for embankments? That will render immediately, because man_made=embankment already renders and we'd just use the subtag to declare what type of embankment it is (berm, stop butt, whatever). Throw in an embankment:use (or embankment:purpose or whatever) and you've pretty much covered it. As a subtag, it's optional, so no pressure to revisit existing embankments and newbies can ignore it when adding embankments if they don't know whether it's a barrier or for noise reduction or whatever. Unless there's some deep physical or philosophical difference between an embankment and a berm, I'd go with subtagging embankments. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
