[Tagging] [OSM-talk] Artwork problems

Janko Mihelić janjko at gmail.com
Thu Sep 1 23:58:22 UTC 2016

pet, 2. ruj 2016. u 00:36 Daniel Koć <daniel at koć.pl> napisao je:

> There are 3 equivalents of a common case (memorial in the form of
> statue):
> - historic=memorial + memorial:type=statue
> - historic=memorial + memorial=statue
> - historic=memorial + tourism=artwork + artwork_type=statue
> Which one should we use as canonical form?

I like the last one precisely because of the vague line between memorials
and decorative pieces. If you don't know if it is a memorial, just put
tourism=artwork. If you know that it is also a memorial, add
historic=memorial. It's easy and clean.

And luckily, Taginfo says it is already mostly used like that (taginfo
doesn't have exact tag combinations available so I had to approximate):

- memorial:type=statue -- 724
- memorial=statue -- 1944
- historic=memorial + tourism=*  -- 3693

> How do we know when "main purpose is to remind us of a person or an
> event" or is just decorative?

Person on the ground knows best, but if you ask me, there's no way to draw
the line. They are always decorative, but sometimes they have the memorial
part. You could argue that all statues of real people are memorials.

> Where the sculpture_shape really belongs to? Is it somehow like
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/artwork_subject#values ? It sounds
> like artwork_type=sculpture + sculpture_shape=*, but what about statue?
> Do we need another type like artwork_type=statue + statue_shape=*?

Artwork_subject does not tell you the shape of the sculpture. The subject
could be Buddha, but it could be a standing, sitting, lying, kneeling or an
abstract Buddha. That's what sculpture_shape would tell you.

I wouldn't use statue_shape, all statues are sculptures anyway.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160901/cddaa8e1/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list