Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

2017-10-05 13:51 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić : > > No.. I've been meaning to do it for some time, but laziness prevailed. > if you don't document it, it will come back sooner or later ;-) You can also add just a small hint for now, so it could be improved later. Cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, 16:47 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 4. Oct 2017, at 14:53, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > > > I use historic=memorial_site. There are 31 of them in OSM right now. > > > I think this is fine for these cases, do

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

2017-10-05 12:37 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > Would depend on the case. > > However if each individual tree is a node in OSM, as it would be if each > has an individual plaque with name, > then it is simpler to include the nodes in a site relation rather than > make an new area.

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

On 05-Oct-17 08:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 5. Oct 2017, at 00:07, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: Then a site relation could be used to combine them into a combined feature? a simple polygon would do as well, or are the commemorative trees very sparse? In

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

The tag landuse says some thing about the land being used for some productive purpose for humans. In that way landuse=forest says that the area is used/going to be used to produce something of benefit to humans. At some time that area may be harvested of trees .. and then have no trees for a a

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

I know that it is controversial topic but in practice both natural=wood and landuse=forest means "area where trees are growing" On 5 Oct 2017 10:55 a.m., "Martin Koppenhoefer" wrote: sent from a phone > On 5. Oct 2017, at 04:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

sent from a phone > On 5. Oct 2017, at 04:58, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > It's definitely not intended for forestry / logging purposes, so it's not > landuse=forest common osm interpretation of landuse=forest is less strict, I think cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

sent from a phone > On 5. Oct 2017, at 00:07, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Then a site relation could be used to combine them into a combined feature? a simple polygon would do as well, or are the commemorative trees very sparse? In the latter case I agree a site relation could

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

beds, various kinds of glass houses, wild flower gardens, species collections etc. Jerry From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, 5 October 2017, 5:27 Subject: Re: [Tagging] war_memorial On 05-Oct-17 01:58 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

On 05-Oct-17 01:58 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Thanks everyone for your thoughts re arboretums Why I brought this up - had a look at the historic=monument tag yesterday morning, which lead me to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CheckTheMonuments &

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

Thanks everyone for your thoughts re arboretums Why I brought this up - had a look at the historic=monument tag yesterday morning, which lead me to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CheckTheMonuments & http://www.historic.place/themes/monuments/map.html. That showed 4 monuments in my general

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

Might be a bit too finegrained for some memorial sites, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Memorial_Arboretum Neil On 04/10/2017 23:07, Warin wrote: > On 05-Oct-17 01:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> sent from a phone >> >>> On 4. Oct 2017, at 14:53, Janko Mihelić

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

On 05-Oct-17 01:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 4. Oct 2017, at 14:53, Janko Mihelić wrote: I use historic=memorial_site. There are 31 of them in OSM right now. I think this is fine for these cases, do you have it documented in the wiki?

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

> I am following this discussion with interest. I have tagged several of these > memorials, > and have used the value war_memorial, because that is what is suggested in > the Wiki. > I have no problem retagging the features I've already tagged, if a consensus > is > reached on an alternative

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

sent from a phone > On 4. Oct 2017, at 16:05, Mark Bradley wrote: > > How would you tag this memorial? I have used historic=memorial, followed by > memorial=stele (following the recommended procedure in the Wiki), but this > object doesn't strictly meet the

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

sent from a phone > On 4. Oct 2017, at 14:53, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > I use historic=memorial_site. There are 31 of them in OSM right now. I think this is fine for these cases, do you have it documented in the wiki? cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

sri, 4. lis 2017. u 01:32 Graeme Fitzpatrick napisao je: > Question on memorials v monuments thanks. > > How about a memorial arboretum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arboretum), > a commemorative planted grove of trees that you can walk through & sit > under? > > Does

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

On 04-Oct-17 12:00 PM, Bill Ricker wrote: On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote: Question on memorials v monuments thanks. How about a memorial arboretum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arboretum

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Question on memorials v monuments thanks. > > How about a memorial arboretum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arboretum), > a commemorative planted grove of trees that you can walk through & sit > under? > > Does

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

Question on memorials v monuments thanks. How about a memorial arboretum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arboretum), a commemorative planted grove of trees that you can walk through & sit under? Does that count as a monument, or is it a memorial? Thanks Graeme

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:21 PM, José G Moya Y. wrote: > Ok, so you agree in reserving war_memorial for war memorials that do not > fit into plaque, statue and other "shape" categories? > ​I wasn't taking a position specifically. Since asked... >From my point of view it's

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

Ok, so you agree in reserving war_memorial for war memorials that do not fit into plaque, statue and other "shape" categories? El 3/10/2017 21:08, "Bill Ricker" escribió: > The Vietnam War Memorial is the first one in US history, to my knowledge, to list all of the

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

> The Vietnam War Memorial is the first one in US history, to my knowledge, to list all of the American casualties. ​ ​Depending on domain of "all" ... it's the only national "all", but not the first to list all for a smaller demographic unit than nation. Harvard U's Memorial Hall lists all

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

On 10/3/2017 12:26 PM, José G Moya Y. wrote: +1. But I wonder if memorial=war_memorial was created with a shape in mind, that of large walls with long lists of names on it we see on american movies. (In Spain, collective memorials are either big plaques, statues or obelisks. The plaques,

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

+1. But I wonder if memorial=war_memorial was created with a shape in mind, that of large walls with long lists of names on it we see on american movies. (In Spain, collective memorials are either big plaques, statues or obelisks. The plaques, typical of the Spanish war of 1936-39, are being

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

uto, 3. lis 2017. u 12:19 Martin Koppenhoefer napisao je: > > There also a "topic" key in small use: > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/topic#values maybe rather than > theme it could be "memorial:topic=war"? > > Ok, memorial:topic=war. Is this thread enough to

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

2017-10-03 11:55 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić : > I propose we deprecate memorial=war_memorial. It's in conflict with other > values of this key. We can use memorial:theme=war_memorial. We can expand > this with other values, like memorial:theme=notable_person, notable_event, > and