On 10 May 2010 02:31, Bill Ricker <[email protected]> wrote: > no the suggestion is that instead of historic=ruins one should say > historic=fort, ruins=yes > > at Historic under ruins it says > A replacement proposal can be found at Proposed_features/ruins > for ruins of historic buildings. E.g. historic=castle, ruins=yes
More or less the tags will help a mapper tag the castle as being in ruins or not . But the tagging will not be useful for detailed tagging like ruins inside a castle . > Since I have done some, and will likely do more, mapping in historic forts > [ http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Bill%20Ricker/diary/8633 , which > is not a ruins but nicely preserved ], I have heard of Rhode island in one of the Hardy boys books :) > this tagging controversy is of interest to me, as is your fort. Where > is this fort with a well of ghee ? As my first mail conveys the neglect of authorities. That place has been frequently visited by vandals hence has been spoiled . Here is a picture of the well . http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Khammam_fort_gheewell.JPG Here is the point on the map . http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/727343198 Regards, Pavithran -- pavithran sakamuri http://look-pavi.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
