On 04/09/2019, Edward Catmur wrote:
> Adding a natural=bare_rock tag to reflect the exposed bedrock underneath
> (yes, chalk is a rock) would seem acceptable
The Margate memorial is painted conrete.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
On 4/9/19 9:16 am, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
The Uffington White Horse is tagged as man_made=geoglyph, which seems
apposite and is documented (if underused).
+1. Not all on hills, small .. or historic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marree_Man
Adding a natural=bare_rock tag to
On 4/9/19 7:58 am, Andy Mabbett wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 17:03, Dan S wrote:
Op di 3 sep. 2019 om 16:06 schreef Michael Booth :
Even though the wiki doesn't say you can use historic=memorial on a
relation, I would tag it as that.
Done; though "historic" seems inapt.
The "type=*" tag
The Uffington White Horse is tagged as man_made=geoglyph, which seems
apposite and is documented (if underused).
Adding a natural=bare_rock tag to reflect the exposed bedrock underneath
(yes, chalk is a rock) would seem acceptable, and would have the definite
bonus of getting the shape to
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 15:01, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> Not sure that there is proper consensus on how to map
> drawn things, like the Cerne Abbas Giant
I've started a discussion, specifically about hill figures, on the tagging list:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 17:03, Dan S wrote:
> Op di 3 sep. 2019 om 16:06 schreef Michael Booth :
> > Even though the wiki doesn't say you can use historic=memorial on a
> > relation, I would tag it as that.
Done; though "historic" seems inapt.
> The "type=*" tag on a relation is usually used to
Ah, good spot. The "type=*" tag on a relation is usually used to
indicate what sort of relationship is represented, e.g.
type=multipolygon. The latter might in fact be a reasonable thing to
do here?
Best
Dan
Op di 3 sep. 2019 om 16:06 schreef Michael Booth :
>
> Tagging it as type=memorial and
Tagging it as type=memorial and memorial=yes doesn't seem very useful to me.
Even though the wiki doesn't say you can use historic=memorial on a
relation, I would tag it as that. It would be similar to this one nearby
[1], would still get rendered and be recognised by data consumers. Or
Seems reasonable. Not sure that there is proper consensus on how to map
drawn things, like the Cerne Abbas Giant
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9425037
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 11:43 AM Andy Mabbett
wrote:
> I've just added the RNLI Dunkirk Memorial at Margate to the map:
>
>
I've just added the RNLI Dunkirk Memorial at Margate to the map:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9995162
but I wasn't sure how to best tag the relation, and the three
connected ways that comprise it.
It's an area of white-painted conrete, in the shape of an anchor.
Any suggestions for
10 matches
Mail list logo
