On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 16:02, Jan Michel <j...@mueschelsoft.de> wrote:
> > I would stay with information=guidepost for those. > That is fine if the only meaning you wish to convey is that there is something which indicates the path of the route. But there are those, like me, who think the physical appearance is important. If the map tells me I should expect to see a guidepost at a particular point, I am looking for one of these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerpost If I am not close enough to read the lettering on a sign and it is inconvenient for me to get closer, I may not realize that what is marked a guidepost on the map is actually the sign I'm looking at. This might be less of a problem were it not for the way some cartos render guideposts, which is a stylized guidepost. Using a information=guidepost for a sign is misleading and, to my mind, downright perverse. This is pounding a square peg into a round hole on the basis that pegs go into holes. It's on a par with mapping motorways as footpaths because they're both ways of getting from A to B. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
