[Tagging] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites

Bjoern Hassler bjohas+mw at gmail.com
Tue Aug 23 12:02:51 UTC 2016


Hi Martin, hi Marc,

thanks for the response. I suppose another way of looking at it would be to
say that the site's existence is verifiable from satellite images. Is there
a tag for that? It could always be added to the note tag, but a structured
tag may be better. E.g. "visible:bing2012=1" or "verified:bing2012=1".

Alternatively maybe "source=bing' would also be ok? Strictly speaking, bing
may not have been the source, as the data may come from a ground survey.
But would it be reasonable to add "source=bing" if the structure is visible
on bing? I suppose "verified:bing2012" may be clearer, and avoid confusion?

Btw. I'm not proposing a new tag, just seeing whether there is an existing
tag I can use.

Bjoern

On 23 August 2016 at 12:57, Marc Zoutendijk <marczoutendijk at mac.com> wrote:

>
> > Op 23 aug. 2016, om 13:42 heeft Bjoern Hassler <bjohas+mw at gmail.com>
> het volgende geschreven:
> >
> > […]
>
> > However, I'd like to add something like "visibility", indicating whether
> the site is clearly visible from a satellite image (and may thus be worth
> visiting).
> >
> > What do you think? What tag should I use?
>
> Satellite images come in various degrees of resolution and hence the
> visibility tag would have to account for that. Because those sites may not
> be visible at all on different areal images.
>
> And “being worth a vist” can easily be set with one of the tourism=*
> solutions.
>
> Marc.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160823/66471263/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list