[OSM-talk] historic=monument - is photo ok?

Sebastian Spaeth Sebastian at SSpaeth.de
Sun Jul 8 18:39:51 BST 2007

Hash: SHA1

Ulf Lamping wrote:
> As someone already started it for the highway topic, I've added example 
> and photo columns for all topics of the map features page - IMHO after 
> being filled with examples and photos, most of the newbie questions will 
> be answered much more easily that way.

Thanks for the work on that page. But I object to adding photos to the
features. The list is long enough as it is and it becomes way longer if
you add photos (although they are small) to it. I rather have a crisp
overview page and more detailed information on dedicated pages.

> While I had a nice photo of a cemetery, I got in doubt with 
> historic=monument.

Because the pics have to be that small on the page they are close to
useful. For example the cemetery which you deem nice... I first thought
it depicts skyscrapers :-). A small rendered icon might be ok, if it
doesn't take up much space though.

I agree that adding more info to many of the tags is useful. But I
strongly vote for creating extra pages for those features and add a more
detailed description, rendering examples, pictures and whathavenot there.

An example of where this has been nicely done is here:

I don't like the key, but having pictures there to explain the different
key values is excellently done there.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the talk mailing list