[Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

Philip Barnes phil at trigpoint.me.uk
Wed Jul 25 12:21:58 UTC 2018


High water is commonly used in terms of tides. 

Phil (trigpoint) 

On 25 July 2018 13:05:56 BST, Robert Szczepanek <robert at szczepanek.pl> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>We work on flood marks project [13] and your opinion on proper tagging 
>is crucial for us, as database of existing features is based on OSM 
>records. We have identified probably most of existing marks in Poland, 
>but would like to finally unify tagging within OSM project.
>
>Both terms (flood mark and high water mark) can be treated as synonyms 
>[1][2].
>High water mark is more popular in USA [3][4], while flood mark in 
>Europe [5][6]. But this is not a rule [7].
>
>Why "flood mark" term is better in our opinion?
>1. "Flood" term is shorter and easier to understand worldwide compared 
>to "high water".
>2. Flood mark is more popular in scientific publications [8, 9, 10]. 
>References are from "Hydrology and Earth System Sciences", one of the 
>best hydrological journals [11].
>3. "High-water mark" term is used also in economy and has another 
>meaning [12].
>4. All additional keys usually contain "flood", not "high water" term. 
>Like "flood_date". It will be more consistent.
>
>In OSM database there are now:
>- 262 features with flood_mark=yes [14]
>- 80 features with historic=highwater_mark [16]
>- 20 features with high_water_mark=yes [15]
>
>Question 1:
>a/ flood_mark
>b/ high_water_mark
>c/ highwater_mark
>
>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
>
>Not every flood mark is a memorial, so probably 2.a/ is not the optimal
>
>option. Short discussion about this can be found here [17].
>
>Thank you for help,
>Robert
>
>
>References
>[1] http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks
>[2] 
>https://theconversation.com/historical-record-shows-these-floods-are-no-high-water-mark-23266
>[3] https://www.weather.gov/gld/1935flood-hwmarks
>[4] https://www.fema.gov/high-water-mark-initiative
>[5] 
>https://www.ceh.ac.uk/news-and-media/news/ceh-experts-contribute-environment-agency-report-feh-local-flood-frequency-estimation
>[6] 
>http://www.studia.photos/england/oxford-oxfordshire-england-uk/attachment/flood-marks-osney-lock-river-thames-oxford-oxfordshire-england-uk/
>[7] 
>https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-flood-level-hight-marks-on-st-margarets-church-porch-kings-lynn-norfolk-11448961.html
>[8]
>https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/19/3517/2015/hess-19-3517-2015.pdf
>[9] 
>https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/12/6541/2015/hessd-12-6541-2015.pdf
>[10] 
>https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/4029/2014/hess-18-4029-2014.pdf
>[11] https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=hydrology
>[12] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/highwatermark.asp
>[13] http://openhydrology.org/maps/flood_mark/
>[14] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:flood_mark
>[15] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:high_water_mark
>[16] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dhighwater_mark
>[17]
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:historic%3Dhighwater_mark
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180725/4d11adc1/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list