[Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument

[Warin]

On 8/05/2015 7:22 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 2015-05-08 10:15 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com 
> <mailto:marc.gemis at gmail.com>>:
>
>     On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Brad Neuhauser
>     <brad.neuhauser at gmail.com <mailto:brad.neuhauser at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         a photo of a stone cross over 5m tall 
>
>
>     since you cannot walk in it/over it (cfr. monument is large ... as
>     in you can walk inside it, over it.) it is a memorial.
>     a monument is often a building IMHO
>
>
>
>
> 5 meters is large ;-)
> a monument can be a building, but it can also be something else.

If it is 10 metres high .. but 50 millimeters diameter ... is it still 
'large'?

I think that 'large' is a volume thing ... For something to be walked 
through/over it would need to be say 3 m by 3 m by 3 m .. so 27 cubic 
meters .. I'd think that would be a minimum volume for 'large'?


>
> IMHO it also depends on context, if you are in a monumental setting 
> with everything huge, a 5 meter stone cross might be just a small 
> insignificant part of it, and could eventually be considered a 
> memorial by the mapper, if instead this is an isolated feature I would 
> be more inclined to map it as monument.
>
>

Context plays a part. A significant hill in a flat desert might be 10 
meters high. (Or very much smaller if you read Len Beadells books.)

======================
I am reluctant to retag a feature that has been tagged a monument by 
someone else where I would have tagged it a memorial, unless it is 
really 'small', where it is 'medium" I leave it alone.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150510/dfe95c06/attachment.html>