[Tagging] Stolpersteine tagging scheme problem

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Sat Aug 25 13:46:38 UTC 2018

On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 2:11 AM, Daniel Koć <daniel at koć.pl> wrote:

> W dniu 25.08.2018 o 02:49, Paul Allen pisze:
> I did some searching pretty much at random and found
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4892971695 which has
> memorial=stoperstein + memorial:type=stolperstein, which is one way of
> handling the problem.
> Dual tagging of a single feature is just a workaround (not a "tagging for
> rendering" though, because it doesn't lie about reality) and I bet this is
> done for rendering it on OSM.org (by OSM Carto).

Sometimes a workaround is the best you can achieve.  Possibly with a fixme
noting that it should be cleaned up
when (if) there is common agreement amongs mappers and renderers.  If we're
lucky, though, an agreement might
be reached quickly.


> Thanks. He has already responded in this thread as the one who has chosen
> historic=memorial + memorial=plaque + plaque=stolperstein (as opposed to 4
> others who prefer historic=memorial + memorial=stolperstein):

Since lutz is the main driving force behind heritage=* and historic=* and
related tagging, his opinion is informed.  Looks
like a reasonable way of tagging it to me.  I like the idea of plaque=* for
adding fine detail because a mapper
encountering a plaque may be unaware that the type of plaque (stolperstein,
blue plaque...) has its own category.
Others may disagree.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180825/876abd15/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list