On 8 August 2018 at 05:00, Robert Szczepanek wrote:
>
>
> Before making any changes in wiki I would like to find final agreement on
> that topic.
> "Flood level" (highest water table) is usually only one of several
> informations we can find on "flood mark". Others can be date of flood,
>
W dniu 06.08.2018 o 01:48, Warin pisze:
On 06/08/18 09:01, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it
historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water to
be a waterways thing ie the high tide mark.
Before making any changes in
On 06/08/18 09:01, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it
historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water to
be a waterways thing ie the high tide mark.
+1
Very sensible IMO.
Yes.
Complication .. a historic king tide
> I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it
historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water to be a
waterways thing ie the high tide mark.
+1
Very sensible IMO.
On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 2:59 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
>
> On 6 August 2018 at 02:48,
On 6 August 2018 at 02:48, Robert Szczepanek wrote:
> W dniu 05.08.2018 o 12:23, Volker Schmidt pisze:
>
>> Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the same thing.
>> Read
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark
>> to get the gist.
>> There are ordinary high water marks
W dniu 05.08.2018 o 12:23, Volker Schmidt pisze:
Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the same thing.
Read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark
to get the gist.
There are ordinary high water marks (and I suppose also the opposite,
ordinary low water marks) which are
Spotted thanks to Osmand:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2401935175
Yves
Le 5 août 2018 12:23:40 GMT+02:00, Volker Schmidt a écrit :
>Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the same thing.
>Read
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark
>to get the gist.
>There are
Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the same thing.
Read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark
to get the gist.
There are ordinary high water marks (and I suppose also the opposite,
ordinary low water marks) which are based on the regular tides in the area.
A flood mark
sent from a phone
> On 3. Aug 2018, at 18:03, Robert Szczepanek wrote:
>
> Indeed not all flood marks are really old/historic. But that threshold is
> probably very fuzzy.
I would put it like this: although they are not all old, they are all history
related (they show a historic flood
W dniu 26.07.2018 o 12:43, Warin pisze:
Some flood marks carry a number of different heights from different
dates. Would be good to map those too.
We map them and split into several nodes at the same place:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4381386159
W dniu 26.07.2018 o 12:29, Andrew Davidson pisze:
On 25/07/18 22:05, Robert Szczepanek wrote:
Question 2:
Which tagging convention should we follow:
a/ flood_mark=yes + historic=memorial + memorial:type=flood_mark
b/ historic=flood_mark + flood_mark:type=(plaque, painted, ...)
c/
On 26/07/18 20:29, Andrew Davidson wrote:
On 25/07/18 22:05, Robert Szczepanek wrote:
Question 1:
a/ flood_mark
b/ high_water_mark
c/ highwater_mark
A.
High water mark is the level that the water got to, so if you marked
that it would be a high water mark marker
Question 2:
Which
On 25/07/18 22:05, Robert Szczepanek wrote:
Question 1:
a/ flood_mark
b/ high_water_mark
c/ highwater_mark
A.
High water mark is the level that the water got to, so if you marked
that it would be a high water mark marker
Question 2:
Which tagging convention should we follow:
Right Phil, thanks for this remark.
Tides are rather short-term and more predictable water table variations.
As such, seldom marked with physical signs. In Poland we found 0 within
262.
High water mark (boundary) is probably more legal term - demarcation of
water/land mainly in coastal
High water is commonly used in terms of tides.
Phil (trigpoint)
On 25 July 2018 13:05:56 BST, Robert Szczepanek wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>We work on flood marks project [13] and your opinion on proper tagging
>is crucial for us, as database of existing features is based on OSM
>records. We have
Hi all,
We work on flood marks project [13] and your opinion on proper tagging
is crucial for us, as database of existing features is based on OSM
records. We have identified probably most of existing marks in Poland,
but would like to finally unify tagging within OSM project.
Both terms
16 matches
Mail list logo
