[Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark
61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Jul 26 10:43:07 UTC 2018
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
> 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
> Historic suggests that the flood mark is interesting because it is
> old. Some flood marks are certainly old and interesting:
> Others are quite new:
> 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.
More information about the Tagging