[Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed Feb 2 18:15:12 GMT 2011
2011/2/2 Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:35 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This could be a way, but I am not yet convinced. Churches, temples and
>> towers are also monuments, but we don't tag them currently as subtypes
>> of monument. Indeed the tag historic=monument is very vague and
>> therefor not very useful IMHO.
> Do you mean the documentation is vague? Then let's fix it.
> My thinking in wanting columns, obelisks, memorials, monuments etc
> grouped under "historic" is because they're thematically related. Who
> is likely to want to see them on a map? Probably a tourist or someone
> with a particular interest in history.
they are also landmarks and serve for orientation for everyone. At
least columns and obelisks. The monuments maybe, the memorials not at
all. Have a look on how they "integrate" in the urban tissue:
> Dumping things under man_made=* isn't helpful because virtually
> everything we map would be either man_made=* or natural=*. We need to
> build smaller sets of things that work together.
I agree, but the suggestion to classify it as man_made was not,
because it was man-made, but because it somehow fits to the objects
already there: beacons, towers, crane, lighthouse, mineshaft,
petroleum_well, water_tower --- on the one hand, on the other it is
not really a functional thing like most of the mentioned.
> Btw your Las Vegas example is clearly an exception. I certainly
> wouldn't use the same tag for a real, historical obelisk and some sort
> of advertising feature.
why not? If you distinguish them? An obelisk is in the first place an
obelisk for the form and size (and it must probably be massive stone
IMHO, so maybe the Las Vegas fake doesn't count). Would an obelisk
made of wood be called an obelisk?
More information about the Tagging