[OSM-talk] Tagging Castles
david at frankieandshadow.com
Mon Aug 13 15:34:27 BST 2007
On 13/08/2007 15:07, Chris Fleming wrote:
> Abigail Brady wrote:
>> On 8/13/07, *David Earl* <david at frankieandshadow.com
>> <mailto:david at frankieandshadow.com>> wrote:
>> Dos this apply to all areas, and on which maps? It's not documented as
>> far as I can see, and Ely Cathedral would benefit from this. Can't
>> say I
>> care about the process for getting it there, but if this is a
>> useful tag
>> that gets rendered on one or both maps, it would be handy to have
>> it on
>> map_features as it is de facto standard.
>> Can't speak for mapnik, but t at h will render any area with a building
>> tag on it. Suggest using "building=cathedral" or "building=castle",
>> but "building=yes" would show up as well.
> The question is, having already labeled the castle with
> historic=castle, tourism=attraction and name="XXXX castle" adding
> building=castle seems a little redundant?
> So I've been thinking that it may be worth thinking of the building tag
> more like a bridge tag, we have plenty of other tags to give details of
> what something is and the building tag is a good way of indicating that
> it's a building? (as apposed to an area on the ground for example)
That's as maybe, but the first step is to document how it works right
now, I think.
Interestingly, in the example I gave, there *isn't* anything else that
says it is a cathedral. (Yes it is a place_of_worship, but so are all
churches etc), and there isn't a cathedral tag. I quite like
building=something personally: there are castles which are not historic
nor attractions; and there are many kinds of building for which we don't
have explicit tags.
My point was, though, that I didn't know about it!
Talking of things I didn't know about, I found by accident that
man_made=mast produces an icon in JOSM. Is this another case that I
ought to know about but isn't documented?
More information about the talk