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

Sebastian Spaeth Sebastian at SSpaeth.de
Mon Jul 9 08:24:30 BST 2007

Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Most of the pictures work well, even if zoomed to a very low level ... 
> the cemetery might be a bad example here ;-)
> The thing with pictures is: They bind the abstract definitions to a real 
> world example that most people will find pretty helpful - and human 
> beings remember pictures far better than the written word in a table - 
> that's because icons have been introduced to computers ;-)

I wasn't saying that including pictures to tags is a bad idea. I am just 
saying that I don't like them in the main map features site. A link to a 
wiki page which contains descriptions, real world examples, pictures, 
and discussions of people on how they exactly use that tag is IMHO very 
useful. Just not on the main page. For me that is something like an 
index page where you simply can find stuff. A dictionaries index doesn't 
have pictures either :-).

> BTW: you can simply click on the picture, to see a larger version.
I know. But if I have to click anyway, why don't put it on the seperate 

> Example: Today, someone added a picture to waterway=stream. Seeing this, 
> my recent question about waterway tagging would have been pointless 
> about the stream. It simply clarifies things a lot especially to persons 
> not really familiar with the english language :-)

Same as above. I agree that stuff like that is wonderful. But it should 
happen on a "waterway" or "stream" wiki page, where people can link to 
sozens of pictures to get the point across.

> A topic page like the mentioned "track grade page" would be a good place 
> for this - the problem is: who will maintain it? I'll see what I can do, 
> but the time is the limit ...

Err, the same people who put up a map feature should also include a 
description of what that feature actually means. From the proposed map 
features the is most of the time a page for each feature anyway 
containing description, discussions and vote. So using that. No worries 
about maintaining it. People who got questions answered should just put 
their stuff in there.

> the crisp days are already  over and more tags to come ;-)

I know. It might be time to come up with something new which scales 
better with the size and amount of entries...

> If you mean to have a sort of reference card of the "available tags", 
> then even the current page is far too much. I'm often finding myself 
> asking something like: "was it amenity=parking or amenity=carpark?". 
> Having a small reference card with only the very basic information (only 
> topic, value, element, even without comment) could be helpful. So you 
> can print it out and use it while tagging. But here you go again: The 
> more stuff you have, the more stuff is to maintain ...

I am thinking of an auto-generated reference card which is produced from 
the features (or even better from the real world usage). I don't know
whether it's possible to do that from the wiki, however.


More information about the talk mailing list