Re: [Tagging] Refining heritage tag

On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 at 00:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I still don’t see why we would need a new tag heritage_title rather than > the established protection_title## > >From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:protection_title Requires boundary=national_park boundary=p

Re: [Tagging] Refining heritage tag

Now that I've read the German wiki more carefully, I realized that they consider World Heritage not only as natural areas but also for buildings, although they clearly state "Always with *boundary

Re: [Tagging] Refining heritage tag

sent from a phone > On 18. Apr 2020, at 01:04, Paul Allen wrote: > > The fraction of heritage POIs which are > protected areas is less than 1%. I still don’t see why we would need a new tag heritage_title rather than the established protection_title Maybe protected “area” is a strange tag f

Re: [Tagging] Refining heritage tag

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 at 23:38, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: because it leads to key bloat. It makes evaluation harder or more > complicated if you have to cater for a lot of different keys which all > basically are about the same thing: the ref that an operator has assigned > to it > But the other

Re: [Tagging] Refining heritage tag

sent from a phone > On 18. Apr 2020, at 00:08, António Madeira wrote: > > I know there are many ref tags that don't follow this procedure, but if this > is useful why not starting to adopt it for some schemes like this one? because it leads to key bloat. It makes evaluation harder or more c

Re: [Tagging] Refining heritage tag

Hi, Martin. Thank you for your input. Às 06:38 de 17/04/2020, Martin Koppenhoefer escreveu: Am Fr., 17. Apr. 2020 um 04:27 Uhr schrieb António Madeira via Tagging mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>: After communicating with lutz from Historic.Place, he told me they didn't create this

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

If a refugee site has a well established name (and, unfortunately, there are many examples all over the world), I don't see why it can't have a "place" tag. Às 18:24 de 17/04/2020, lukas-...@web.de escreveu: Hi, my question is whether this then rather would be something for the "place" tag? Or d

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Hi, my question is whether this then rather would be something for the "place" tag? Or did we maybe have that discussion already?   --Lukas   Gesendet: Freitag, 17. April 2020 um 18:28 Uhr Von: "Manon Viou" An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Prop

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Hello everyone, It seems I haven't been very clear in my explanations; I sometimes have a bit of trouble choosing the right word (especially in English). And I think the “small”/”large” discussion is going the wrong direction… The n

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

sent from a phone > On 16. Apr 2020, at 23:33, António Madeira wrote: > > Do we divide big schools from small schools? Or small theatres from big > theatres? things can change nature just by changing size or quantity. We have different tags for a single tree and a tree row and a forest. We

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

On 17/4/20 5:29 am, Manon Viou wrote: Hello, According to Martin and Warin, the difference between large and small refugee site is not clear enough, Martin suggested to use population capacity, for instance less than 200 people fro small refugee site, Warin suggested to use number of square me

Re: [Tagging] Refining heritage tag

Am Fr., 17. Apr. 2020 um 04:27 Uhr schrieb António Madeira via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > After communicating with lutz from Historic.Place, he told me they didn't > create this heritage scheme, they just adopted it. > I took the opportunity to present him my proposal of refining this