Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization
2011/1/13 rob...@elsenaar.info: Why: fortification_type=hill_fort Better is: fortification:type=hill_fort where do you get this idea from? There are 289 fortification_type and 0 fortification:type in the db. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization
In holland we have a saying: Better to turn back halfway then get lost at the end. Means that if you look at the more and more popular way of tagging. It is wiser to you this on this occassion and correct the alt fashion tags. Last year the :right and :left subtag is a big use to a lot of main tags like highway, cycleway and so on. syntax: main tag : sub tag = * Everytime creating a new main tag when you in fact want to add a sub tag like fortification_type in stead of fortification:type is not very efficient. I plea for introducing the sub tag :type for using on fortification, but also on e.g. museum (wild guess). (And I think I already saw the sub tag came by: tree:type ?) -Robert- Citeren M?rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2011/1/13 rob...@elsenaar.info: Why: fortification_type=hill_fort Better is: fortification:type=hill_fort where do you get this idea from? There are 289 fortification_type and 0 fortification:type in the db. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization
robert@... writes: In holland we have a saying: Better to turn back halfway then get lost at the end. Means that if you look at the more and more popular way of tagging. It is wiser to you this on this occassion and correct the alt fashion tags. Last year the :right and :left subtag is a big use to a lot of main tags like highway, cycleway and so on. syntax: main tag : sub tag = * Everytime creating a new main tag when you in fact want to add a sub tag like fortification_type in stead of fortification:type is not very efficient. I plea for introducing the sub tag :type for using on fortification, but also on e.g. museum (wild guess). (And I think I already saw the sub tag came by: tree:type ?) -Robert- Citeren M?rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist@...: 2011/1/13 robert@...: Why: fortification_type=hill_fort Better is: fortification:type=hill_fort where do you get this idea from? There are 289 fortification_type and 0 fortification:type in the db. cheers, Martin Probably a good idea Robert. The main idea of my post was to show Ulf that using the proposed civilization and civilization:period-tags shouldn't be any harder than normally. The example chosen by Ulf was something that probably is dealt with in: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dcastle and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Darchaeological_site and that is where I got the tags, I did not do any own thinking ragarding the off-topic-tags. Both of the wiki-pages above have plenty of.._type. Maybe a suggestion from you on the discussion-page would come in handy. If you look closely on my post, you can see that I had an alternative tagging with tripple subtags: historic:civilization:period:bronze age and even another alternative with quadruple tagging historic:civilization:Celtic:period:bronze age I haven´t got the idea yet, but guess it isn´t supposed to be like that. /Johan J ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization
Certainly not like that. I will start a new thread to discuss this idea more in detail. I think there's nothing wrong when we try to standardize tags and have a moment of retagging when we have a 1:1 substitution. -Robert- -Oorspronkelijk bericht- From: JohanJönsson Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 6:37 PM To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging]RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization robert@... writes: In holland we have a saying: Better to turn back halfway then get lost at the end. Means that if you look at the more and more popular way of tagging. It is wiser to you this on this occassion and correct the alt fashion tags. Last year the :right and :left subtag is a big use to a lot of main tags like highway, cycleway and so on. syntax: main tag : sub tag = * Everytime creating a new main tag when you in fact want to add a sub tag like fortification_type in stead of fortification:type is not very efficient. I plea for introducing the sub tag :type for using on fortification, but also on e.g. museum (wild guess). (And I think I already saw the sub tag came by: tree:type ?) -Robert- Citeren M?rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist@...: 2011/1/13 robert@...: Why: fortification_type=hill_fort Better is: fortification:type=hill_fort where do you get this idea from? There are 289 fortification_type and 0 fortification:type in the db. cheers, Martin Probably a good idea Robert. The main idea of my post was to show Ulf that using the proposed civilization and civilization:period-tags shouldn't be any harder than normally. The example chosen by Ulf was something that probably is dealt with in: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dcastle and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Darchaeological_site and that is where I got the tags, I did not do any own thinking ragarding the off-topic-tags. Both of the wiki-pages above have plenty of.._type. Maybe a suggestion from you on the discussion-page would come in handy. If you look closely on my post, you can see that I had an alternative tagging with tripple subtags: historic:civilization:period:bronze age and even another alternative with quadruple tagging historic:civilization:Celtic:period:bronze age I haven´t got the idea yet, but guess it isn´t supposed to be like that. /Johan J ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging --- Tekst ingevoegd door Panda GP 2011: Als het hier gaat om een ongevraagde e-mail (SPAM), klik dan op de volgende link om de e-mail te herclasseren: http://localhost:6083/Panda?ID=pav_1876SPAM=truepath=C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\Panda%20Security\Panda%20Global%20Protection%202011\AntiSpam --- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization
Your examples are rather ridiculous. A Viking captain, or King Arthur's sword, would not be logical items to have on a map. A building or archaeological site likely would be on a map, and tagging them with the civilization and era would make it easy to generate special-interest maps. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization From :mailto:pier...@gmail.com Date :Wed Jan 12 10:23:21 America/Chicago 2011 On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 4:40 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/1/12 j...@jfeldredge.com mailto:j...@jfeldredge.com : I made a starting page. I also added some initial values for historic:period to the page, but there is still space for more detail, e.g. historic:era to put the name of a regent/despot or what the classification is. I would like to have the page in the end quite detailed, including years (if possible) and so on. Am I the only one who is thinking that such information are better placed in Wikipedia than in OSM ? Or many of this list readers decided to lazily shut their mouth because they hope that such tags will never become popular ? What is the next proposal : a tag for the name of the captain of the viking boats who invaded England during first millenium ? A subtag for the weight and length of the king Arthur's sword ? Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization
Am 12.01.2011 17:59, schrieb j...@jfeldredge.com: Your examples are rather ridiculous. A Viking captain, or King Arthur's sword, would not be logical items to have on a map. Hmmm, I guess Pieren is very much aware of this :-) A building or archaeological site likely would be on a map, and tagging them with the civilization and era would make it easy to generate special-interest maps. Yes, in principle. In practice, lot's of sites have *several* different roots throughout the ages. A castle may be build in early medieval ages, continuously extended throughout those ages, largely changed in the baroque era and mostly rebuild after damages of the second world war. Oh, and all of that on top of a hill that was already populated in the celtic age. How do you tag that? Regards, ULFL ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization
Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@... writes: In practice, lot's of sites have *several* different roots throughout the ages. A castle may be build in early medieval ages, continuously extended throughout those ages, largely changed in the baroque era and mostly rebuild after damages of the second world war. Oh, and all of that on top of a hill that was already populated in the celtic age. How do you tag that? Regards, ULFL I am not used to these fancy namespacing tags, but they look useful. I guess it would be something like this: - building=yes building:architecture=baroque historic:castle historic:civilization:Celtic, Anglo-Saxon historic:civilization:period:bronze age, early medieval, baroque, post-war - or is it: -- building=yes building:architecture=baroque historic:castle historic:civilization:Celtic historic:civilization:Celtic:period:bronze age historic:civilization:Anglo-Saxon historic:civilization:Anglo-Saxon:period:early medieval, baroque, post-war -- It is probably the most visible or prominent remains that should be tagged. The Celtic hill fort is probably at the most an archaeological site. I guess that the archaeological site could be tagged separately, either as a single node or as an area. Do not tag if not visible. - building=yes building:architecture=baroque historic:castle historic:civilization:Anglo-Saxon historic:civilization:period: early medieval, baroque, post-war historic=archaeological_site site_type=fortification fortification_type=hill_fort historic:civilization:Celtic historic:civilization:period:bronze age - ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization
2011/1/12 Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com: In practice, lot's of sites have *several* different roots throughout the ages. A castle may be build in early medieval ages, continuously extended throughout those ages, largely changed in the baroque era and mostly rebuild after damages of the second world war. Oh, and all of that on top of a hill that was already populated in the celtic age. How do you tag that? the hill or the castle? Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization
Am 13.01.2011 03:08, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: 2011/1/12 Ulf Lampingulf.lamp...@googlemail.com: In practice, lot's of sites have *several* different roots throughout the ages. A castle may be build in early medieval ages, continuously extended throughout those ages, largely changed in the baroque era and mostly rebuild after damages of the second world war. Oh, and all of that on top of a hill that was already populated in the celtic age. How do you tag that? the hill or the castle? Could you explain both? Regards, ULFL ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization
2011/1/13 Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com: Could you explain both? The hill would be tagged according to what is there (maybe archaeological_site ?) The castle would be tagged as building=castle (and castle subtypes etc., it's in the wiki). As you wrote it is an almost complete rebuild, still I'd tag it probably as baroque (beeing the dominating style). I'm not sure if the civilization tags will help you here, probably it's pointless in this context. historic:period=baroque might be a tag that evolves, but there is also the proposed building:architecture for the architectural style. I would also tag precise dates and the architect's name if known. Be sure to include a link to wikipedia for the whole story. If there are identificable parts of the building dating before the baroque era, tag them separately. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization
Why: fortification_type=hill_fort Better is: fortification:type=hill_fort -Robert- Citeren Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc: Ulf Lamping ulf.lamping@... writes: In practice, lot's of sites have *several* different roots throughout the ages. A castle may be build in early medieval ages, continuously extended throughout those ages, largely changed in the baroque era and mostly rebuild after damages of the second world war. Oh, and all of that on top of a hill that was already populated in the celtic age. How do you tag that? Regards, ULFL I am not used to these fancy namespacing tags, but they look useful. I guess it would be something like this: - building=yes building:architecture=baroque historic:castle historic:civilization:Celtic, Anglo-Saxon historic:civilization:period:bronze age, early medieval, baroque, post-war - or is it: -- building=yes building:architecture=baroque historic:castle historic:civilization:Celtic historic:civilization:Celtic:period:bronze age historic:civilization:Anglo-Saxon historic:civilization:Anglo-Saxon:period:early medieval, baroque, post-war -- It is probably the most visible or prominent remains that should be tagged. The Celtic hill fort is probably at the most an archaeological site. I guess that the archaeological site could be tagged separately, either as a single node or as an area. Do not tag if not visible. - building=yes building:architecture=baroque historic:castle historic:civilization:Anglo-Saxon historic:civilization:period: early medieval, baroque, post-war historic=archaeological_site site_type=fortification fortification_type=hill_fort historic:civilization:Celtic historic:civilization:period:bronze age - ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
