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

David Earl 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 
> sheet.

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 mailing list