[OSM-talk] Castles and Palaces

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Thu Jun 4 22:32:05 BST 2009


2009/6/4 Nop <ekkehart at gmx.de>:
> If you look at roads with the same scientific level of precision, there are
> differences in measurements, markings, minimum speed, maximum speed, traffic
> rules etc.
> Have you looked at the values? Do you really think a value of
> "castle_type=Schloss;Burg" is a good idea?

well, it is clearly defined on the page you mentioned as a Burg that
later was transformed into a Schloss and therefore has characteristics
of both. It is clearly defined and IMHO much clearer than the
castle_type=residential you suggest.

> Not at all. As there is a 1:1 English replacement for every German term, it

Roman already told you at the time that there is no 1:1 English
replacement. That's why he suggested the german terms.

> can be switched to alternate terms easily without any loss of information.

but you do like russian and japanese terms, or why didn't you
"translate" shiro and kremlin?

You are complaining about people sneaking stuff into the wiki, but you
are the one doing this: after quite a lot of time (and tagging, this
is tagwatch for castle_type:  	Schloss (77), Burg (68), burg (6),
Burg, Schloss (5), schloss (4), Herrenhaus (3), Wasserburg (2),
chateau (1), citadelle (1), fort (1), kremlin (1) ), a nice wikipage
with pictures, etc. the only effort you do is to add confusion by
simply adding your own private favorite tags below the old ones. I ask
you to remove them there at least until there is some more conclusion
in this discussion. You could set up your own alternative
castle_type-page, but simply putting them there is really not good
style.

Martin




More information about the talk mailing list