Re: [Tagging] Transport mode on platforms? (Was: Re: Documentation issues of PT tagging schemes)

[Jo]

Very soon after PTv2 was 'accepted' I understood that if we would ever
replace hw=bus_stop NODES with pt=platform, the mode of transport would
need to be added on these nodes.

Ever since it's a back and forth pulling between yes the mode of transport
can be added on them and NO the platforms don't need a mode of transport.

In the mean time, I'm not so sure that there is willingness to 'deprecate'
highway=bus_stop, not even sure if there ever was, and I guess there is no
real need for it etiher. The problem with that kind of thinking is that it
can lead to the conclusion the whole public_transport scheme is not needed
for the stops.

Now I don't mind using it, just like I wouldn't mind dropping it.

What I do mind is the use of multiple objects in the route relations to
represent the same stop and the perceived need to 'upgrade' stops from
nodes to ways/areas during their lifecycle if there are actual platforms
for passengers to wait on.

I created a 10 minute screencast showing some new functionality in
PT_Assistant, but more importantly it also shows the public_transport tags
are a bit confusing to some. In this case the stops mapped nicely as nodes
alongside the way got stop_position instead of platform as the value.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVcKredS0kA

PT_Assistant's validator will tell you about this and JOSM will make it
easy to correct the situation.

After stopping the recording I went on to fix the from/to tags and adding a
route_master relation before uploading. But I wanted to keep the screencast
concise and to the point.

Polyglot

Op wo 25 jul. 2018 om 22:56 schreef SelfishSeahorse <
selfishseaho...@gmail.com>:

> Hi
>
> It seems that the only problem with PTv2 that remains is the rendering
> of public_transport=platform, i.e. whether public_transport=platform
> (and maybe public_transport=station too) should get the transport mode
> tag(s) (bus=yes/tram=yes/...).
>
> Note that the PTv2 proposal suggested to map the *stop position* 'as
> an icon depending of the vehicle type that is stopping at the
> position',[1] which may have led to some people mapping only
> stop_position's, others mapping only platform's and still others
> mapping stop_position's and platform's which in turn has led to
> complication and confusion.
>
> [1]:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport_v3
>
> As this question pops up every now and then, it might make sense to
> finish discussing this.
>
> I'm double posting this message on the transport mailing list, so that
> the discussion can continue there.
>
> Regards
> Markus
>
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 19:25, Roland Olbricht 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > What I would like to see is how to map a Public Transport Route in
> > > version 3 .. that has the bear minimum of things to have and the rules
> > > that make the route valid.
> >
> > This is where the problem sits; the point of view of what a route is
> > vary wildly. Few people are even willing to pinpoint and tell their
> > personal definition.
> >
> > Things that exist under the notion of route:
> >
> > - Urban bus/tram/subway services (many stops, many departures, route
> > taken always or almost always the same, route through the street grid
> > practically fixed, often unchanged for years to decades)
> >
> > - Peak services, special routes to depot, school services (few
> > departures, many stops, also many route variants, frequently changing,
> > making it impractical to route them all)
> >
> > - Hail bus services: the bus is promised to serve a certain street and
> > stops on hail (many departures, route taken always or almost always the
> > same, route through the street grid practically fixed, often unchanged
> > for years to decades)
> >
> > - Urban and regional train lines (many stops, many departures, route and
> > platforms fixed). Those routes are often in parts or completely land
> marks.
> >
> > - Long distance train lines (many stops, many departures, route and
> > platforms may or may not vary, can stop at a different platform of the
> > same station for operational reasons)
> >
> > - Long distance bus services (few stops, few departures, route between
> > stops often changing on the fly)
> >
> > - Ferry lines (often only two stops, completely different
> > infrastructure)
> >
> > Further kinds of routes may exist. For example, some communties use
> > virtual metro lines that connect station node to station node. This is
> > most often because the communties lack the ressources to map the actual
> > underground structures.
> >
> > I personally map only urban bus/tram/subway services and urban and
> > regional train lines (and do not delete other routes). For these
> > services it is sane to have marked the stops and the route on the grid.
> >
> > The route on the grid is straightforward: this is in any PT scheme a
> > sequence of way members that together form a continuous trajectory. Hail
> > sections get a special role for these members.
> >
> > The stop 

[Tagging] Transport mode on platforms? (Was: Re: Documentation issues of PT tagging schemes)

[SelfishSeahorse]

Hi

It seems that the only problem with PTv2 that remains is the rendering
of public_transport=platform, i.e. whether public_transport=platform
(and maybe public_transport=station too) should get the transport mode
tag(s) (bus=yes/tram=yes/...).

Note that the PTv2 proposal suggested to map the *stop position* 'as
an icon depending of the vehicle type that is stopping at the
position',[1] which may have led to some people mapping only
stop_position's, others mapping only platform's and still others
mapping stop_position's and platform's which in turn has led to
complication and confusion.

[1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport_v3

As this question pops up every now and then, it might make sense to
finish discussing this.

I'm double posting this message on the transport mailing list, so that
the discussion can continue there.

Regards
Markus

On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 19:25, Roland Olbricht  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > What I would like to see is how to map a Public Transport Route in
> > version 3 .. that has the bear minimum of things to have and the rules
> > that make the route valid.
>
> This is where the problem sits; the point of view of what a route is
> vary wildly. Few people are even willing to pinpoint and tell their
> personal definition.
>
> Things that exist under the notion of route:
>
> - Urban bus/tram/subway services (many stops, many departures, route
> taken always or almost always the same, route through the street grid
> practically fixed, often unchanged for years to decades)
>
> - Peak services, special routes to depot, school services (few
> departures, many stops, also many route variants, frequently changing,
> making it impractical to route them all)
>
> - Hail bus services: the bus is promised to serve a certain street and
> stops on hail (many departures, route taken always or almost always the
> same, route through the street grid practically fixed, often unchanged
> for years to decades)
>
> - Urban and regional train lines (many stops, many departures, route and
> platforms fixed). Those routes are often in parts or completely land marks.
>
> - Long distance train lines (many stops, many departures, route and
> platforms may or may not vary, can stop at a different platform of the
> same station for operational reasons)
>
> - Long distance bus services (few stops, few departures, route between
> stops often changing on the fly)
>
> - Ferry lines (often only two stops, completely different
> infrastructure)
>
> Further kinds of routes may exist. For example, some communties use
> virtual metro lines that connect station node to station node. This is
> most often because the communties lack the ressources to map the actual
> underground structures.
>
> I personally map only urban bus/tram/subway services and urban and
> regional train lines (and do not delete other routes). For these
> services it is sane to have marked the stops and the route on the grid.
>
> The route on the grid is straightforward: this is in any PT scheme a
> sequence of way members that together form a continuous trajectory. Hail
> sections get a special role for these members.
>
> The stop part is more tricky. I personally add one element for each stop
> where the bus/train is calling, using the role "platform". The member
> element should have the tag "name" set to ensure meaningful usage and
> pain-free editing of the route.
>
> The minimum required tags on the relation are "ref=",
> somtimes "name=", and "type=route" + "route=bus" for buses.
>
> Please do not forget that a more detailed explaination fits better on
> the transit list
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
> I would suggest to continue the discussion there, but Ilya has for
> unknown reason fear of the talk-transit list. It makes sense to give him
> an easy opportunity to answer.
>
> I read Ilya's proposal such that he wants to feature the virtual metro
> lines, at the expense of mandating to map hail services as empty
> relations. But it would be better if he tells us himself.
>
> Best regards,
> Roland
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Documentation issues of PT tagging schemes

[Roland Olbricht]

Hi,

What I would like to see is how to map a Public Transport Route in 
version 3 .. that has the bear minimum of things to have and the rules 
that make the route valid.


This is where the problem sits; the point of view of what a route is 
vary wildly. Few people are even willing to pinpoint and tell their 
personal definition.


Things that exist under the notion of route:

- Urban bus/tram/subway services (many stops, many departures, route 
taken always or almost always the same, route through the street grid 
practically fixed, often unchanged for years to decades)


- Peak services, special routes to depot, school services (few 
departures, many stops, also many route variants, frequently changing, 
making it impractical to route them all)


- Hail bus services: the bus is promised to serve a certain street and 
stops on hail (many departures, route taken always or almost always the 
same, route through the street grid practically fixed, often unchanged 
for years to decades)


- Urban and regional train lines (many stops, many departures, route and 
platforms fixed). Those routes are often in parts or completely land marks.


- Long distance train lines (many stops, many departures, route and 
platforms may or may not vary, can stop at a different platform of the 
same station for operational reasons)


- Long distance bus services (few stops, few departures, route between 
stops often changing on the fly)


- Ferry lines (often only two stops, completely different
infrastructure)

Further kinds of routes may exist. For example, some communties use 
virtual metro lines that connect station node to station node. This is 
most often because the communties lack the ressources to map the actual 
underground structures.


I personally map only urban bus/tram/subway services and urban and 
regional train lines (and do not delete other routes). For these 
services it is sane to have marked the stops and the route on the grid.


The route on the grid is straightforward: this is in any PT scheme a 
sequence of way members that together form a continuous trajectory. Hail 
sections get a special role for these members.


The stop part is more tricky. I personally add one element for each stop 
where the bus/train is calling, using the role "platform". The member 
element should have the tag "name" set to ensure meaningful usage and 
pain-free editing of the route.


The minimum required tags on the relation are "ref=", 
somtimes "name=", and "type=route" + "route=bus" for buses.


Please do not forget that a more detailed explaination fits better on 
the transit list

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
I would suggest to continue the discussion there, but Ilya has for 
unknown reason fear of the talk-transit list. It makes sense to give him 
an easy opportunity to answer.


I read Ilya's proposal such that he wants to feature the virtual metro 
lines, at the expense of mandating to map hail services as empty 
relations. But it would be better if he tells us himself.


Best regards,
Roland

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Documentation issues of PT tagging schemes

[Dave F]

On 25/07/2018 05:58, Roland Olbricht wrote:

Hi,

This would not be the bells and whistles method, but the bread and 
water method. The basics that would have the routing working and the 
map displaying things.


See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_stop


I see fundamental problems in the third paragraph. As is says 
public_transport=platform & highway=bus_stop are representing the same 
entity, then it's duplication of data, which leads to confusion & 
errors, and tagging incorrectly for the renderer.



and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dplatform


And similar here in the first paragraph.


public_transport=platform appears superfluous as there are existing & 
widely used tags to "identify the places where passengers board or 
alight from public transport"


PTv2 schema made the mistake of trying to create an all-encompassing 
Venn diagram like circle around existing transport entities. It's claim 
that "This proposal extends the existing and well known tags" turned out 
to be incorrect. It just repeats them. Duplication is not the way to do it.





Both wiki pages are up to date and pretty prefect. "Up to date" means 
that more than 90% of all public transport objects are mapped that way.


From a semantic way, it would only be necessary to drop a few words for
- tram stops without a platform
- subway stations: if the underground structure is not known then you 
should map at least "railway=station" + "name=" and all entrances

And a decent mapping scheme would be complete.


Bottom line: Nobody, really nobody needs relations of type stop_area, 
stop_area_group, route_master, network, and stop_position information.


I agree, but if public_transport=platform & public_transport=station are 
also redundant, what's left? If all public_transport tags are removed 
will anybody be unable to create routing?


Cheers
DaveF



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Robert Szczepanek]

Right Phil, thanks for this remark.
Tides are rather short-term and more predictable water table variations. 
As such, seldom marked with physical signs. In Poland we found 0 within 
262.


High water mark (boundary) is probably more legal term - demarcation of 
water/land mainly in coastal zones. It can be found in US, GB, AU and 
probably many other countries [1][2].


Big problem is very wide (misleading) meaning of "high water mark" [3].

regards,
Robert

[1] 
http://www.valuergeneral.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/216980/Valuation_of_land_below_high_water_mark_commercial_waterfront_occupancies_July_2017.pdf

[2] http://cromersurveyors.com.au/blog/high-water-mark-title
[3] http://www.mikelynaugh.com/MalvernHill/images/IMG_2341.jpg

W dniu 25.07.2018 o 14:21, Philip Barnes pisze:

High water is commonly used in terms of tides.

Phil (trigpoint)

On 25 July 2018 13:05:56 BST, Robert Szczepanek  
wrote:


Hi all,

We work on flood marks project [13] and your opinion on proper tagging
is crucial for us, as database of existing features is based on OSM
records. We have identified probably most of existing marks in Poland,
but would like to finally unify tagging within OSM project.

Both terms (flood mark and high water mark) can be treated as synonyms
[1][2].
High water mark is more popular in USA [3][4], while flood mark in
Europe [5][6]. But this is not a rule [7].

Why "flood mark" term is better in our opinion?
1. "Flood" term is shorter and easier to understand worldwide compared
to "high water".
2. Flood mark is more popular in scientific publications [8, 9, 10].
References are from "Hydrology and Earth System Sciences", one of the
best hydrological journals [11].
3. "High-water mark" term is used also in economy and has another
meaning [12].
4. All additional keys usually contain "flood", not "high water" term.
Like "flood_date". It will be more consistent.

In OSM database there are now:
- 262 features with flood_mark=yes [14]
- 80 features with historic=highwater_mark [16]
- 20 features with high_water_mark=yes [15]

Question 1:
a/ flood_mark
b/ high_water_mark
c/ highwater_mark

Question 2:
Which tagging convention should we follow:
a/ flood_mark=yes + historic=memorial + memorial:type=flood_mark
b/ historic=flood_mark + flood_mark:type=(plaque, painted, ...)
c/ historic=highwater_mark

Not every flood mark is a memorial, so probably 2.a/ is not the optimal
option. Short discussion about this can be found here [17].

Thank you for help,
Robert


References
[1]http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks
[2]

https://theconversation.com/historical-record-shows-these-floods-are-no-high-water-mark-23266
[3]https://www.weather.gov/gld/1935flood-hwmarks
[4]https://www.fema.gov/high-water-mark-initiative
[5]

https://www.ceh.ac.uk/news-and-media/news/ceh-experts-contribute-environment-agency-report-feh-local-flood-frequency-estimation
[6]

http://www.studia.photos/england/oxford-oxfordshire-england-uk/attachment/flood-marks-osney-lock-river-thames-oxford-oxfordshire-england-uk/
[7]

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-flood-level-hight-marks-on-st-margarets-church-porch-kings-lynn-norfolk-11448961.html
[8]https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/19/3517/2015/hess-19-3517-2015.pdf
[9]

https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/12/6541/2015/hessd-12-6541-2015.pdf
[10]
https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/4029/2014/hess-18-4029-2014.pdf
[11]https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=hydrology
[12]https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/highwatermark.asp
[13]http://openhydrology.org/maps/flood_mark/
[14]https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:flood_mark
[15]https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:high_water_mark
[16]https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dhighwater_mark
[17]https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:historic%3Dhighwater_mark



Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Castles and manors

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 8:20 AM, Ture Pålsson  wrote:

I noticed that this structure: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/190298018 is
> tagged historic=castle. It is certainly not defensive (Swedish Wikipedia:
> https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennartsnäs), so I thought it needed a
> castle_type, but reading the wiki description of castle_type=manor (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:castle_type%3Dmanor) confused me
> a bit. It says that historic=manor can be used for "manors which are not
> castles", which makes me wonder: what is the difference between a
> historic=castle,castle_type=manor and a historic=manor?
>

The wiki is confusing and the tags are also confusing (confusingly, the
tags and their documentation differ in confusing
ways, so at least the confusion is consistently confusing).

Most historic/heritage tags have arisen from, and are mapped by, the
historical objects map at gk.historic.place so that is
the best place to query things (Lutz was very helpful when I had questions).

As I understand it, manor houses were local administrative centres a few
centuries ago (as in "Lord of the Manor").
Some were what we'd now class as stately homes (big house for a very rich
guy) and some were defensive (fortified).
Some started out as grand homes but were later fortified, such as by adding
castellations.  Others remained
non-defensive but added castellations for the appearance.  It's messy and
confusing.  It might have been
better to tag them as fortification=manor or something like that, but the
current tagging is what has evolved and
what is endered on gk.historic.place.

The final arbiter is Lutz rather than this list.  We on this list can
invent new methods of tagging heritage/historic
objects but since gk.historic.place is the only renderer that deals with
most of their values, Lutz's opinion is the one that
really matters.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Philip Barnes]

High water is commonly used in terms of tides. 

Phil (trigpoint) 

On 25 July 2018 13:05:56 BST, Robert Szczepanek  wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>We work on flood marks project [13] and your opinion on proper tagging 
>is crucial for us, as database of existing features is based on OSM 
>records. We have identified probably most of existing marks in Poland, 
>but would like to finally unify tagging within OSM project.
>
>Both terms (flood mark and high water mark) can be treated as synonyms 
>[1][2].
>High water mark is more popular in USA [3][4], while flood mark in 
>Europe [5][6]. But this is not a rule [7].
>
>Why "flood mark" term is better in our opinion?
>1. "Flood" term is shorter and easier to understand worldwide compared 
>to "high water".
>2. Flood mark is more popular in scientific publications [8, 9, 10]. 
>References are from "Hydrology and Earth System Sciences", one of the 
>best hydrological journals [11].
>3. "High-water mark" term is used also in economy and has another 
>meaning [12].
>4. All additional keys usually contain "flood", not "high water" term. 
>Like "flood_date". It will be more consistent.
>
>In OSM database there are now:
>- 262 features with flood_mark=yes [14]
>- 80 features with historic=highwater_mark [16]
>- 20 features with high_water_mark=yes [15]
>
>Question 1:
>a/ flood_mark
>b/ high_water_mark
>c/ highwater_mark
>
>Question 2:
>Which tagging convention should we follow:
>a/ flood_mark=yes + historic=memorial + memorial:type=flood_mark
>b/ historic=flood_mark + flood_mark:type=(plaque, painted, ...)
>c/ historic=highwater_mark
>
>Not every flood mark is a memorial, so probably 2.a/ is not the optimal
>
>option. Short discussion about this can be found here [17].
>
>Thank you for help,
>Robert
>
>
>References
>[1] http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks
>[2] 
>https://theconversation.com/historical-record-shows-these-floods-are-no-high-water-mark-23266
>[3] https://www.weather.gov/gld/1935flood-hwmarks
>[4] https://www.fema.gov/high-water-mark-initiative
>[5] 
>https://www.ceh.ac.uk/news-and-media/news/ceh-experts-contribute-environment-agency-report-feh-local-flood-frequency-estimation
>[6] 
>http://www.studia.photos/england/oxford-oxfordshire-england-uk/attachment/flood-marks-osney-lock-river-thames-oxford-oxfordshire-england-uk/
>[7] 
>https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-flood-level-hight-marks-on-st-margarets-church-porch-kings-lynn-norfolk-11448961.html
>[8]
>https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/19/3517/2015/hess-19-3517-2015.pdf
>[9] 
>https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/12/6541/2015/hessd-12-6541-2015.pdf
>[10] 
>https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/4029/2014/hess-18-4029-2014.pdf
>[11] https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=hydrology
>[12] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/highwatermark.asp
>[13] http://openhydrology.org/maps/flood_mark/
>[14] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:flood_mark
>[15] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:high_water_mark
>[16] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dhighwater_mark
>[17]
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:historic%3Dhighwater_mark
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Robert Szczepanek]

Hi all,

We work on flood marks project [13] and your opinion on proper tagging 
is crucial for us, as database of existing features is based on OSM 
records. We have identified probably most of existing marks in Poland, 
but would like to finally unify tagging within OSM project.


Both terms (flood mark and high water mark) can be treated as synonyms 
[1][2].
High water mark is more popular in USA [3][4], while flood mark in 
Europe [5][6]. But this is not a rule [7].


Why "flood mark" term is better in our opinion?
1. "Flood" term is shorter and easier to understand worldwide compared 
to "high water".
2. Flood mark is more popular in scientific publications [8, 9, 10]. 
References are from "Hydrology and Earth System Sciences", one of the 
best hydrological journals [11].
3. "High-water mark" term is used also in economy and has another 
meaning [12].
4. All additional keys usually contain "flood", not "high water" term. 
Like "flood_date". It will be more consistent.


In OSM database there are now:
- 262 features with flood_mark=yes [14]
- 80 features with historic=highwater_mark [16]
- 20 features with high_water_mark=yes [15]

Question 1:
a/ flood_mark
b/ high_water_mark
c/ highwater_mark

Question 2:
Which tagging convention should we follow:
a/ flood_mark=yes + historic=memorial + memorial:type=flood_mark
b/ historic=flood_mark + flood_mark:type=(plaque, painted, ...)
c/ historic=highwater_mark

Not every flood mark is a memorial, so probably 2.a/ is not the optimal 
option. Short discussion about this can be found here [17].


Thank you for help,
Robert


References
[1] http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks
[2] 
https://theconversation.com/historical-record-shows-these-floods-are-no-high-water-mark-23266

[3] https://www.weather.gov/gld/1935flood-hwmarks
[4] https://www.fema.gov/high-water-mark-initiative
[5] 
https://www.ceh.ac.uk/news-and-media/news/ceh-experts-contribute-environment-agency-report-feh-local-flood-frequency-estimation
[6] 
http://www.studia.photos/england/oxford-oxfordshire-england-uk/attachment/flood-marks-osney-lock-river-thames-oxford-oxfordshire-england-uk/
[7] 
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-flood-level-hight-marks-on-st-margarets-church-porch-kings-lynn-norfolk-11448961.html

[8] https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/19/3517/2015/hess-19-3517-2015.pdf
[9] 
https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/12/6541/2015/hessd-12-6541-2015.pdf
[10] 
https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/4029/2014/hess-18-4029-2014.pdf

[11] https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=hydrology
[12] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/highwatermark.asp
[13] http://openhydrology.org/maps/flood_mark/
[14] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:flood_mark
[15] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:high_water_mark
[16] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dhighwater_mark
[17] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:historic%3Dhighwater_mark

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Castles and manors

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 25. Jul 2018, at 09:20, Ture Pålsson  wrote:
> 
> It says that historic=manor can be used for "manors which are not castles", 
> which makes me wonder: what is the difference between a 
> historic=castle,castle_type=manor and a historic=manor?


I’m not sure there is any difference. 
If manors are not castles, the tagging as castle seems weird, usually subtypes 
should also be part of the “type”



> 
> (I'm also not entirely sure whether this is a "manor" or a "stately".)


I’m also not sure there is a meaningful difference, particularly if it is 
outside British language areas.

Cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Castles and manors

[Ture Pålsson]

I noticed that this structure: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/190298018 
 is tagged historic=castle. It is 
certainly not defensive (Swedish Wikipedia: 
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennartsnäs), so I thought it needed a 
castle_type, but reading the wiki description of castle_type=manor 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:castle_type%3Dmanor) confused me a 
bit. It says that historic=manor can be used for "manors which are not 
castles", which makes me wonder: what is the difference between a 
historic=castle,castle_type=manor and a historic=manor?

(I'm also not entirely sure whether this is a "manor" or a "stately".)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] landuse=sand

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 25. Jul 2018, at 03:14, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Done. There will probably be more in the future.


thank you!

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging