I agree that not all signs should be mapped, and exactly as Warin describes them here. I DO believe that guidepost, map and information signs (as our wiki describes and as I did earlier in this thread) SHOULD be mapped.
As I re-read 80hnhtv4agou's original post, it looks like he wants to map (the location of?) a sign that names a park (as a node, he called it a "point," while "node" is the more correct OSM term). As Warin says, I wouldn't map this particular sign as a node, I would simply map the name of the park (on the polygon that represents it). Although sometimes, a park is initially entered in OSM as simply a node, before its boundaries as a polygon are well known (then they are later, better mapped). This is an OK thing to do in the early stages of a park "entering" OSM's database, and the location of the sign that announces the name of the park is as good a place as any to enter this node, along with a name=Park Name tag on that node. SteveA > On Apr 24, 2020, at 5:01 PM, Warin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 25/4/20 2:01 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote: >> if in the ID editor there are points for picnic tables, what about a point >> tags as a sign. > > > What sort of 'sign'? > > > Mapping a sign that says the road has a name? I'd not do that. I would tag > the road with the name. > > Mapping a sign that says a city has a name? I'd not do that. I would tag the > city with the name. > > Mapping a sign that says a building has a name? I'd not do that. I would tag > the building with the name. > > > Not all signs should be mapped. > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
