[Tagging] city walls
voschix at gmail.com
Wed Dec 17 10:52:15 UTC 2014
So far I have never come across "razed". What's the difference between
"razed" and "dismantled", if any?
On 17 December 2014 at 07:04, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at gmail.com>
> 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.
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
Via del Cristo 28
mailto:voschix at gmail.com
personal mobile+39 340 1427 105
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging