[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - defensive structures

[Casper Kersten]

I thank everyone for the constructive feedback so far. More is always
appreciated. I am currently rewriting the proposal based mostly on Jeroen
Hoek's suggestions. I will upload the changes soon enough.

@Bert Araali I understand that many structures can be mapped in one way or
another with existing tags, but I think it is preferable to have tags with
technical terms to specify different kinds of structures.

@Martin Koppenhoefer Names are only for actual names, such as Saint James
Cavalier. The information that it is a cavalier should still be tagged
separately from that. Many structures are also nameless and tagging them
with description=bastion/ravelin/redan/... is far from ideal. As I stated
in the rationale, many structures simply have no tags yet and that is what
I am changing with this proposal.

Op wo 7 jul. 2021 om 15:27 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdreist at gmail.com>:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 7 Jul 2021, at 14:43, Bert -Araali- Van Opstal <
> bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Georg, there is no need for a new top level value in the
> historic key or a new defensive_structure key,
>
>
> +1
>
>
> > I even doubt of there is any "gap".
>
>
> then you’re probably not interested in the topic and in describing the
> details in a structured way
>
>
> > the proposal just creates more ambiguity with existing tagging schemes.
> > All the examples given are specific terms for objects that fit under
> existing tags.
> > We don't use new tags for specific walls in or constructions in non
> historic buildings either like sheer wall, dividing wall etc... . If there
> is really a need to describe or use specific terms one can use
> description=* or even in some cases one of the name keys.
>
>
>
> we aim at creating machine readable data, any tag we have in the db could
> be substituted by description and name tags, because these are freeform
> tags where you can put any text, but it wouldn’t make the data more
> informative or easier to use.
>
> I agree with your assessment, we already have (unspecific) tags for all or
> most of the things that are proposed, but IMHO the conclusion should be
> additional tags for specific subtypes, rather than freeform tags that
> require an ai or a person that speaks the language, to make sense of them
>
> Cheers Martin
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210707/0d8b9df1/attachment-0001.htm>