Re: [Tagging] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites

2016-08-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
please also note that there is orthoimagery from the PCN available for the whole of Italy. This is typically better aligned than Bing. More info here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Italy/PCN Cheers, Martin sent from a phone ___

[Tagging] Nominatim’s use of is_in and tag documentation

2016-08-23 Thread Andrew Hain
A detailed explanation of when Nominatim uses the is_in tag was recently posted to the talk mailing list [https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-August/076596.html]; it only does so for certain objects and only when boundaries haven’t been mapped properly. It may therefore be

Re: [Tagging] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites

2016-08-23 Thread Bjoern Hassler
Hi Martin, I am planning to review the objects systematically, and sometimes the tagging doesn't give much information. Also, as we know, sometimes an object is added, but the accuracy may not be that high. So - when I review an object (with no source information provided in the tags), and can

Re: [Tagging] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites

2016-08-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 23 ago 2016, alle ore 14:02, Bjoern Hassler > ha scritto: > > Strictly speaking, bing may not have been the source, as the data may come > from a ground survey. But would it be reasonable to add "source=bing" if the > structure is visible

Re: [Tagging] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites

2016-08-23 Thread Tom Pfeifer
Bjoern Hassler wrote on 2016/08/23 14:02: Hi Martin, hi Marc, thanks for the response. I suppose another way of looking at it would be to say that the site's existence is verifiable from satellite images. Is there a tag for that? It could always be added to the note tag, but a structured tag

Re: [Tagging] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites

2016-08-23 Thread Stefano
2016-08-23 13:42 GMT+02:00 Bjoern Hassler : > Hi all, > > how would you tag whether an archaeological site is visible on satellite > images? > > Sardinia has several 1,000 large megalithic stone towers (nuraghe), about > 600 of which are in OSM. However, they have different

Re: [Tagging] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites

2016-08-23 Thread Bjoern Hassler
I guess I am looking for something like - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:survey:date - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:check_date but for satellite image cross-check (unlike survey:date, which is for verification in person). Bjoern On 23 August 2016 at 13:02, Bjoern Hassler

Re: [Tagging] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites

2016-08-23 Thread Bjoern Hassler
Hi Martin, hi Marc, thanks for the response. I suppose another way of looking at it would be to say that the site's existence is verifiable from satellite images. Is there a tag for that? It could always be added to the note tag, but a structured tag may be better. E.g. "visible:bing2012=1" or

Re: [Tagging] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites

2016-08-23 Thread Marc Zoutendijk
> Op 23 aug. 2016, om 13:42 heeft Bjoern Hassler het > volgende geschreven: > > […] > However, I'd like to add something like "visibility", indicating whether the > site is clearly visible from a satellite image (and may thus be worth > visiting). > > What do you

Re: [Tagging] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites

2016-08-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 23 ago 2016, alle ore 13:42, Bjoern Hassler > ha scritto: > > However, I'd like to add something like "visibility", indicating whether the > site is clearly visible from a satellite image (and may thus be worth > visiting). > > What do

[Tagging] Satellite visibility of archaeological sites

2016-08-23 Thread Bjoern Hassler
Hi all, how would you tag whether an archaeological site is visible on satellite images? Sardinia has several 1,000 large megalithic stone towers (nuraghe), about 600 of which are in OSM. However, they have different states of preservation. Some are clearly visible on the satellite image (with