Re: [Tagging] informal helipads for emergency use
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Richard Welty wrote: > i'm thinking both areas and nodes, with tagging that looks something like > this: > > aeroway=helipad > name=Fred's LZ > access=no > emergency=yes > surface=grass > > does this seem reasonable? Seems reasonable to me, and useful. Maybe an operator=*? There are plenty of things less verifiable and less "on the ground" that get mapped - place=locality comes to mind. FWIW, I noticed recently that some 4wd maps I've been using have "helipads" marked, deep in national parks. I'm not sure if their intended use is for emergencies (evacuation points for bushfires, perhaps) or for loading/unloading supplies. In some areas they're pretty common - every 10km or so. Btw, some objections below complain that this would be mapping "agreements with landholders". I think what's really being mapped is the *designation* by an emergency authority. Which makes this information exactly equivalent to any other designation that we include, including protected areas, road designations, land zones, etc. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Erik Johansson wrote: > We all know "don't tag for the renderer" mantra, repeating it is > pointless. Or at least repeat it with the appropriate nuances: "Don't use semantically incorrect tags to achieve a short term goal based on the current behaviour of one particular renderer." > I'm pointing out that this is neither objectively an > attraction nor a shelter, To the extent that tourist attractions "objectively" exist, most of these huts would qualify. Not sure I really want to argue this point though. > Sure you can micro map it, but it's really too much work to tag it like this: I'm not sure how many of these huts there are - maybe 100 or so. It's not really a question of "too much work" - I'm happy to add whatever tags are necessary to make the data useful to the widest range of renderers etc. They're very small though, and usually outside the range of high quality imagery, so not likely to get mapped as areas. > So you are probably going to end up with a one node solution, one > could also call it > > disused:amenity=shelter > shelter_type=weather_shelter > tourism=attraction > name="Smith hut (ruins)" > note="historic feature built blablabla see more about smith huts" Yup. (Although probably not "ruins" and "weather_shelter" on the same hut...) > My view is that many tags in OSM are either too specific or too > general, alpine_hut/tucan crossing/pelican crossing/basc_shelter are > to specific and tourism=attraction might be too general. Going after > Steves description I'm not sure I would like to discover this when I > went to find a hut. Yeah, that's the cultural expectation thing I referred to earlier. Australians do not expect to find staff huts when they go hiking, and interpret hut symbols on maps appropriately. (And it still confuses me every time I go hiking in Europe!) IMHO this is ok - semantics can vary slightly by region. No? Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
