[OSM-talk] trace and signs

[stevea]

I agree that not all signs should be mapped, and exactly as Warin describes them here.  I DO believe that guidepost, map and information signs (as our wiki describes and as I did earlier in this thread) SHOULD be mapped.

As I re-read 80hnhtv4agou's original post, it looks like he wants to map (the location of?) a sign that names a park (as a node, he called it a "point," while "node" is the more correct OSM term).  As Warin says, I wouldn't map this particular sign as a node, I would simply map the name of the park (on the polygon that represents it).  Although sometimes, a park is initially entered in OSM as simply a node, before its boundaries as a polygon are well known (then they are later, better mapped).  This is an OK thing to do in the early stages of a park "entering" OSM's database, and the location of the sign that announces the name of the park is as good a place as any to enter this node, along with a name=Park Name tag on that node.

SteveA

> On Apr 24, 2020, at 5:01 PM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 25/4/20 2:01 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote:
>> if in the ID editor there are points for picnic tables, what about a point tags as a sign.
> 
> 
> What sort of 'sign'?
> 
> 
> Mapping a sign that says the road has a name? I'd not do that. I would tag the road with the name.
> 
> Mapping a sign that says a city has a name? I'd not do that. I would tag the city with the name.
> 
> Mapping a sign that says a building has a name? I'd not do that. I would tag the building with the name.
> 
> 
> Not all signs should be mapped.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk