[Tagging] Proposal - voting finished - man_made=lamp
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed Nov 27 09:59:14 UTC 2013
2013/11/26 Manuel Hohmann <mhohmann at physnet.uni-hamburg.de>
> > yes, rejected ;-)
> I'm really not sure what you don't understand about the word DRAW or
> about the fact that the total number of positive votes exceeds the
> total number of negative votes.
I think it is pointless to continue discussing about a "draw" as the rules
seem quite clearly to require a majority: "A rule of thumb for "enough
support" is *8 unanimous approval votes* or *15 total votes with a majority
approval*, but other factors may also be considered (such as whether a
feature is already in use)."
the fact that some of the tags you propose are already in use (differently
to what you propose) doesn't strengthen the idea that this should be
considered approved despite the strong opposition.
> there are also fixed lanterns, and there is even another use for it
> in architecture, probably you'll find it in this context as well
> (building:part etc.)
Yes, there are indeed, I do not doubt that. It was just a general
> remark that this tag may also be misinterpreted (which probably
> applies to many words, one needs to choose carefully in any case).
well, this is not an insurmountable hurdle, we should simply pay attention
to how we precisely name those tags (e.g. the architectural element could
be called "roof_lantern").
> > You could use man_made=pole / post / mast / tower /... for the
> > support/structure (if mapped on a node).
> - - "lantern" (which I actually like more than the lamp:type=street_lamp
> in my proposal, since it takes the "street" out of this name, and
> would be a lighting for maybe a railway, an area... or a street)
> - - "signal_lamp" (yes, I checked the term - see wikipedia)
> - - "warning" (a hazard warning lamp)
> - - "aviation" (like those lights at an airport runway)
these terms IMHO don't fit well under the same key, "lantern" is a type of
light defined by the design/construction, while "warning" and "aviation"
are defined by the scope.
> What about light_source? This is also not used so far, and it gives a
> rather accurate description of the object being mapped. Something
> ending in _type sounds more like a subclass to me (as we don't tag
> highway_type=*, but highway=track, tracktype=*).
I would go for the "established" "lamp_type" as this is in use and has
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging