[Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark
phil at trigpoint.me.uk
Wed Jul 25 12:21:58 UTC 2018
High water is commonly used in terms of tides.
On 25 July 2018 13:05:56 BST, Robert Szczepanek <robert at szczepanek.pl> wrote:
>We work on flood marks project  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
>High water mark is more popular in USA , while flood mark in
>Europe . But this is not a rule .
>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 .
>3. "High-water mark" term is used also in economy and has another
>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 
>- 80 features with historic=highwater_mark 
>- 20 features with high_water_mark=yes 
>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, ...)
>Not every flood mark is a memorial, so probably 2.a/ is not the optimal
>option. Short discussion about this can be found here .
>Thank you for help,
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging at openstreetmap.org
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging