[OSM-talk] historic=monument - is photo ok?
david at frankieandshadow.com
Mon Jul 9 10:14:07 BST 2007
On 09/07/2007 08:24, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> 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
I like it. I don't think the size of the page is a particular problem. I
think it is very useful to have everything in one place.
I have some photos I will contribute for some of the other features.
More information about the talk