Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

My apologies, wrong link! The corner guard stone is here: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/USu9htX8nw95mW77kSeZ7Q Volker On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 23:40, Alan Mackie wrote: > > > On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 17:03, Volker Schmidt wrote: > >> My gard stone example on a building corne >>

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 17:03, Volker Schmidt wrote: > My gard stone example on a building corne > is also useful > for this part of the discussion. I know the place well and I know the local > amateur history expert, and we talked about

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

My gard stone example on a building corne is also useful for this part of the discussion. I know the place well and I know the local amateur history expert, and we talked about this specific stone, and also asked about its historic value.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I am not saying that these stones should or not get a historic tag, but > surely it isn’t an argument that one of the OpenStreetMap based maps > highlights things based on a wildcard selection. > Not an argument, merely a piece of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

sent from a phone > On 7. Dec 2020, at 23:16, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Yes, that tag is a good idea. > But, it is not a barrier on the way, but a single object off the way. I agree. For the node on the way, barrier=entrance might eventually be suitable together with width where the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

sent from a phone > On 7. Dec 2020, at 22:56, Paul Allen wrote: > > And if none of that persuades you, the historic=* tag is treated specially > by the Historic Places map and is given special emphasis. It would > get very cluttered if these stones were classed as historic. I am not

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

I think the direction tag should be described as optional if the node is on a building way. From the description given the direction of most of these will be "away from the building". On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 22:16, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Yes, that tag is a good idea. > But, it is not a barrier

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

Yes, that tag is a good idea. But, it is not a barrier on the way, but a single object off the way. Normally, but not always they come in pairs, but it does not always come in pairs. They are often corner stones. When there is a pair, i.e. one on each side, it would make sense to see it as a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 21:28, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: mostly for European use (I think), I propose a new node type barrier, > namely "guard stone": > Your proposal says these should be tagged historic=yes. Historic is not a synonym for old, or disused, or even historical. Historic means

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

Hi everyone, mostly for European use (I think), I propose a new node type barrier, namely "guard stone": A guard stone is in most cases a stone built onto or into the corner of a building or wall. They are usually found on either side of an entrance to a laneway or gateway. Guard