[Tagging] Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

[Jez Nicholson]

In general, are these signs physically on the camera, or are they in the
vicinity? If so, should they be tagged objects in their own account?

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020, 10:54 John Sturdy, <jcg.sturdy at gmail.com> wrote:

> Whatever the concensus in another discussion was, I think that double
> negatives will risk confusion, and that *:signed=yes and *:signed=no seems
> to be a reasonable proposal.
>
> I have noticed that some but not all of the surveillance cameras (city
> council, I believe) in Cambridge (UK) have signs.
>
> __John
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:13 AM marc marc <marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Le 19.02.20 à 04:29, Victor/tuxayo a écrit :
>> > Coincidentally there was a recent discussion[2] about these signs in the
>> > french mailing list (talk-fr) which lead to adding the following section
>> > in the page
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made=surveillance
>>
>> I warn that this addition does not reflect the discussion that took
>> place on talk-fr, but is "self-declared as consensus"
>> more than half of the opinions are that a regulatory sign of this kind
>> is not tourist information (imho I think it is closer to a sign that
>> announces a pedestrian crossing or a maxspeed zone)
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200219/b07f8378/attachment.htm>