[Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

Robert Szczepanek robert at szczepanek.pl
Fri Aug 3 16:03:42 UTC 2018


W dniu 26.07.2018 o 12:29, Andrew Davidson pisze:
> On 25/07/18 22:05, Robert Szczepanek wrote:
>>
>> Question 2:
>> Which tagging convention should we follow:
>> a/ flood_mark=yes + historic=memorial + memorial:type=flood_mark
>> b/ historic=flood_mark + flood_mark:type=(plaque, painted, ...)
>> c/ historic=highwater_mark
> 
> Historic suggests that the flood mark is interesting because it is old. 
> Some flood marks are certainly old and interesting:
> http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-5861 
> http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-5857 
> 
> Others are quite new:
> http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-5865 
> http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-6289 
> 

Indeed not all flood marks are really old/historic. But that threshold 
is probably very fuzzy.

Looking at one of you examples 
(https://www.flickr.com/photos/23954094@N05/9701630002) I realized that 
Frank (and probably many others) call it "Flood high water marks".

So basic tag for mark could be
flood_mark=(yes, plaque, pole, painted, ...),
just to avoid flood_mark:type=*.
And additionally, features with historical value can get 
historic=highwater_mark. Makes it sense?

> Does it have to be flood_mark:type=*? Would flood_mark=* be adequate?
> 

Great hint - thanks!

regards,
Robert



More information about the Tagging mailing list