[Tagging] city walls

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at gmail.com
Wed Dec 17 06:04:04 UTC 2014


Razed would be much better for this kind of object (though I am not a big
fan fan of razed, sooner or later completely mundane things without any
kind of recognition are tagged this way).

But at least it is not misrepresenting things.

2014-12-16 22:20 GMT+01:00 Zecke <zeck at saeuferleber.de>:
>
>
>  "interesting to map dismantled city gates as historic=city_gate"
>
>>
>>  It is OK to map ruins/remmants, archeological site - but note that
>> completely destroyed objects should NOT be mapped.
>
>
>  typically city gates have had such a huge impact on the structure of
> cities that they normally persist even if there is nothing left in physical
> terms. The roads that once passed the gates are still the "arterial" roads,
> the squares are still named after the gates (typically) and the whole area
> often still has that name (e.g. referring here to my birth town Tübingen,
> where everybody would still know "Neckartor" (dismantled 1804), "Lustnauer
> Tor" or "Haagtor" (and 2 others, all of which non-existent physically but
> very existent in daily life/communication, e.g. to set up a place to meet)).
>
>
> Actually we recommend to map such objects with the razed: prefix for
> objects that once existed but now there are only barely remnants or even
> indirect indications thereof.
> As long as there is a historical interest in them and there is a slight
> indication of its position we are willing to map them in the historic map.
>
> Cheers,
> Zecke
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20141217/1f834940/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list