Re: [Tagging] Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

2020-02-19 Thread Michael Reichert
Hi, Am 19.02.20 um 12:45 schrieb Jez Nicholson: > In general, are these signs physically on the camera, or are they in the > vicinity? If so, should they be tagged objects in their own account? In supermarkets and other shops, I do not map surveillance cameras individually. Instead, I just put

Re: [Tagging] Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

2020-02-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 19 feb 2020, alle ore 04:31, Victor/tuxayo ha > scritto: > > > In countries where the public must be notified of surveillance cameras, the > > following tags could be used on the node: > > > > tourism=information > > information=board > >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

2020-02-19 Thread Peter Elderson
I think a warning sign is legally required in Nederland. I don't think it's very useful to register the absence or presence of mandatory warning signs in OSM. If it is not there, report it to whoever is supposed to maintain or enforce it. If you want to register incidents to make a stand, an

Re: [Tagging] Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

2020-02-19 Thread John Sturdy
On the ones I've noticed in Cambridge, they are either on the lower part of the pole supporting the camera, or, for building-mounted cameras, on the wall below the camera. (The cameras are well above head height, and notices on them would not be readable unless very large.) On Wed, Feb 19, 2020

Re: [Tagging] Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

2020-02-19 Thread Jez Nicholson
In general, are these signs physically on the camera, or are they in the vicinity? If so, should they be tagged objects in their own account? On Wed, 19 Feb 2020, 10:54 John Sturdy, wrote: > Whatever the concensus in another discussion was, I think that double > negatives will risk confusion,

Re: [Tagging] Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

2020-02-19 Thread John Sturdy
Whatever the concensus in another discussion was, I think that double negatives will risk confusion, and that *:signed=yes and *:signed=no seems to be a reasonable proposal. I have noticed that some but not all of the surveillance cameras (city council, I believe) in Cambridge (UK) have signs.

Re: [Tagging] Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

2020-02-19 Thread marc marc
Le 19.02.20 à 04:29, Victor/tuxayo a écrit : > Coincidentally there was a recent discussion[2] about these signs in the > french mailing list (talk-fr) which lead to adding the following section > in the page > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made=surveillance I warn that this

[Tagging] Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

2020-02-18 Thread Victor/tuxayo
Hi, :) This is kind of a proposal/first discussion to introduce the following tag and values for surveillance cameras : "camera:signed=yes" => when the camera has a sign that warns about it's presence. "camera:signed=no" => when the camera does not hold any information sign about itself. ==