Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark
W dniu 06.08.2018 o 01:48, Warin pisze: On 06/08/18 09:01, Dave Swarthout wrote: > I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water to be a waterways thing ie the high tide mark. Before making any changes in wiki I would like to find final agreement on that topic. "Flood level" (highest water table) is usually only one of several informations we can find on "flood mark". Others can be date of flood, inscription, etc. Physical object mapped in OSM is rather mark, not just water/flood level. So "historic=flood_mark" is probably more generic. +1 Very sensible IMO. Yes. Complication .. a historic king tide combined with a storm event may be considered a historic flood level. But 'normal' high tides should be part of the water way tagging system. This can be sometimes hard to distinguish. But tide+storm I would consider rather as flood event - probably higher level comparing to periodic tides. In such a case we can find in on place two types of marks: * historic=highwater_mark - with information about periodic highest water level (no date provided), * historic=flood_mark - with information about flood event (with date) So existence of date on such mark could be a good information for proper tag assignment. I'm not familiar with tides, so please correct me if this is not the case. regards Robert On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 2:59 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 6 August 2018 at 02:48, Robert Szczepanek mailto:rob...@szczepanek.pl>> wrote: W dniu 05.08.2018 o 12:23, Volker Schmidt pisze: Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the same thing. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark to get the gist. There are ordinary high water marks (and I suppose also the opposite, ordinary low water marks) which are based on the regular tides in the area. A flood mark would be a marker for the water level reached in certain, particular events. I am not sure about terminology in different jurisdictions, but the concept seems to be clear to me that there are two different things we want to tag. I would like it to be so: - flood marks as flood signs, - highwater marks as tide signs. But even in recent scientific papers this division is not so clear. Another issue is that from the beginning, on OSM wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic mark related to floods is described as historic=highwater_mark What would be the optimal tagging solution from OSM point of view? regards Robert I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water to be a waterways thing ie the high tide mark. Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ 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] Flood mark or high water mark
W dniu 05.08.2018 o 12:23, Volker Schmidt pisze: Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the same thing. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark to get the gist. There are ordinary high water marks (and I suppose also the opposite, ordinary low water marks) which are based on the regular tides in the area. A flood mark would be a marker for the water level reached in certain, particular events. I am not sure about terminology in different jurisdictions, but the concept seems to be clear to me that there are two different things we want to tag. I would like it to be so: - flood marks as flood signs, - highwater marks as tide signs. But even in recent scientific papers this division is not so clear. Another issue is that from the beginning, on OSM wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic mark related to floods is described as historic=highwater_mark What would be the optimal tagging solution from OSM point of view? regards Robert ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark
W dniu 26.07.2018 o 12:43, Warin pisze: Some flood marks carry a number of different heights from different dates. Would be good to map those too. We map them and split into several nodes at the same place: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4381386159 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4381386160 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4381386161 regards, Robert ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark
W dniu 26.07.2018 o 12:29, Andrew Davidson pisze: On 25/07/18 22:05, Robert Szczepanek wrote: 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 Historic suggests that the flood mark is interesting because it is old. Some flood marks are certainly old and interesting: http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-5861 http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-5857 Others are quite new: http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-5865 http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-6289 Indeed not all flood marks are really old/historic. But that threshold is probably very fuzzy. Looking at one of you examples (https://www.flickr.com/photos/23954094@N05/9701630002) I realized that Frank (and probably many others) call it "Flood high water marks". So basic tag for mark could be flood_mark=(yes, plaque, pole, painted, ...), just to avoid flood_mark:type=*. And additionally, features with historical value can get historic=highwater_mark. Makes it sense? Does it have to be flood_mark:type=*? Would flood_mark=* be adequate? Great hint - thanks! regards, Robert ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark
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
[Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark
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
