[Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Warin]

On 26/07/18 20:29, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> On 25/07/18 22:05, Robert Szczepanek wrote:
>>
>> Question 1:
>> a/ flood_mark
>> b/ high_water_mark
>> c/ highwater_mark
>
> A.
>
> High water mark is the level that the water got to, so if you marked 
> that it would be a high water mark marker....
>
>
>> 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
>
> Have you thought about using something like man_made=flood_mark? 
> Similar to man_made=survey_point 
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurvey_point).
>
> 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 
>
>
> Does it have to be flood_mark:type=*? Would flood_mark=* be adequate?
>
> _______________________________


Some flood marks carry a number of different heights from different 
dates. Would be good to map those too.