[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Oct 27 23:30:03 GMT 2009
2009/10/28 Lesi <lesi at lesi.is-a-geek.net>
> > 2009/10/24 Lesi <lesi at lesi.is-a-geek.net>:
> >> - In the forum somebody has suggested to add a tag for the name of the
> >> mine
> >> the mineshaft belongs to. At first I thought this would be the same as
> >> operator, but actually it is not. So which tag would be appropriate?
> >> mine=...?
> > to associate the mineshaft to the mine I'd not recommend to do it with
> > tags but either with a polygon, or with a relation (e.g.
> > site-relation) or both.
> > cheers,
> > Martin
> I do not see a possibility to express it with a polygon. Mineshaft are
> outside of the main area of the mine.
how do you define "main area"? Aren't the shafts vertical access /
ventilation shafts that lead to the inner mine? IMHO that defines them as
part of the mine (and indicates that they should be comprised).
> I already thought about a relation. But AFAIK the site-relation is also
> a proposal at the moment.
yes, but there doesn't seem to be a better one (AFAIR just route,
multipolygon and restrictions are approved relations).
> Besides it is quite easy to map a mineshaft, but difficult to map the rest
> of the mine, if there are no satellite pictures.
or the company provides you the information, or you work there. That's
anyway not a problem to discuss: either you have the info and put it or you
don't and will most likely not put it.
> And it would be senseless
> to make a relation which contains only the mineshaft.
> So IMO there should be tag with the name of the mine. This does not prevent
> to add the mineshaft to a site-relation as well.
> sure, just put name=<name_of_the_mine> like for any other feature. A
problem might arise if the mineshaft has a name itself and/or if there is
more than one mineshaft. In these cases I'd still opt for the relation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk