You are not logged in.

#26 2014-01-18 23:55:28

stephankn
Moderator
Registered: 2010-05-04
Posts: 622

Re: Argh! Stupas as Wireless masts...

monument=stupa is used 91 times on a single site, the Erdene Zuu Monastery
47.2015302, 102.8432013
and then at only three more places in Cambodia. So in total used at four sites.

tower:type=stupa is more widespread and used by more people.

Given that with the bell towers we have a similar concept already I'm in slight favor of the tower:type tagging.

Did you already ask for input at a wider audience on the tagging list?

Offline

#27 2014-01-19 15:29:30

EndlessRoundabout
Member
Registered: 2013-11-27
Posts: 41

Re: Argh! Stupas as Wireless masts...

stephankn wrote:

monument=stupa is used 91 times on a single site, the Erdene Zuu Monastery
47.2015302, 102.8432013
and then at only three more places in Cambodia. So in total used at four sites.

tower:type=stupa is more widespread and used by more people.

Given that with the bell towers we have a similar concept already I'm in slight favor of the tower:type tagging.

Did you already ask for input at a wider audience on the tagging list?

Given that stupa is not used that much yet, I think there is still time to arrive at a consensus. I thought indeed the idea was to get a consensus from a wider audience. Given we have already non-intuitive tags, it seemed to me that one should try to avoid that. I have outlined above - I can summarize again if desired - why I think tower is such a good idea for stupa since many are not towers.

Bell tower may seem like a similar concept, but it is actually derived from real towers, hence natural.

Offline

#28 2014-01-20 09:56:43

stephankn
Moderator
Registered: 2010-05-04
Posts: 622

Re: Argh! Stupas as Wireless masts...

Sometimes there is no consensus.
It's because OSM is a living system of tagging habits.

It changes, develops and evolves.

See the way to tag addresses and house numbers. There existed different strategies to do so. Or public transport.

And there is not "a single ruler" in OSM to make final decisions.

If you're looking for strict tagging rules, maybe OSM is not the right place for you. Did you have a look at Google's Map Maker?

Offline

#29 2014-01-20 10:35:32

stephankn
Moderator
Registered: 2010-05-04
Posts: 622

Re: Argh! Stupas as Wireless masts...

Jo brought in another aspect regarding chedis.

She would like to distinguish these still actively "used", usually located in a temple and the more "historic" ones just being there as you won't tear them down.

I think I had tagged the later ones historic=ruins. Not sure it's the best way to do. If you can come up with a better way of tagging, please do so.

Offline

#30 2014-01-20 14:34:18

EndlessRoundabout
Member
Registered: 2013-11-27
Posts: 41

Re: Argh! Stupas as Wireless masts...

stephankn wrote:

Sometimes there is no consensus.
It's because OSM is a living system of tagging habits.

It changes, develops and evolves.

See the way to tag addresses and house numbers. There existed different strategies to do so. Or public transport.

And there is not "a single ruler" in OSM to make final decisions.

If you're looking for strict tagging rules, maybe OSM is not the right place for you. Did you have a look at Google's Map Maker?


Well, perhaps in a way you are right that something like MapMaker might be what I'm looking for. On the other hand, the reason I went now with OSM is that one can download the maps without constantly being connect to some network, that's really the attraction - an open source map.

Still, there seems to be sort of a split personality, on the one hand people discuss and agree, and other, everybody can do what they want...  Ok, it's exaggerated, but I guess you get my gist. I'm not looking for a big navtec document, but a few more guidelines, that can also help newcomers, wouldn't that be useful?

Offline

#31 2014-01-20 14:36:05

EndlessRoundabout
Member
Registered: 2013-11-27
Posts: 41

Re: Argh! Stupas as Wireless masts...

stephankn wrote:

Jo brought in another aspect regarding chedis.

She would like to distinguish these still actively "used", usually located in a temple and the more "historic" ones just being there as you won't tear them down.

I think I had tagged the later ones historic=ruins. Not sure it's the best way to do. If you can come up with a better way of tagging, please do so.

Yes, I have been thinking about this as well as you can see in some of my points above. Have to look at the latest status of "ruin".

Offline

#32 2014-01-23 17:39:05

EndlessRoundabout
Member
Registered: 2013-11-27
Posts: 41

Re: Argh! Stupas as Wireless masts...

EndlessRoundabout wrote:
stephankn wrote:

Jo brought in another aspect regarding chedis.

She would like to distinguish these still actively "used", usually located in a temple and the more "historic" ones just being there as you won't tear them down.

I think I had tagged the later ones historic=ruins. Not sure it's the best way to do. If you can come up with a better way of tagging, please do so.

Yes, I have been thinking about this as well as you can see in some of my points above. Have to look at the latest status of "ruin".


ok, it seems there  are basically two ways of doing it, not clear if the proposal went ahead.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Prop … ures/ruins
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features

so, you can have ruins=castle
or you can have historic=castle, ruins=yes

the ruins yes/no is used in other situations as well, e.g. windmills     i.e. man_made=windmill, ruins=yes

The latter would of course allow description of pretty much anything as I sort of was contemplating above already

i.e.
man_made=temple,   ruins=yes    not clear what is better, needs some more thought.

Offline

#33 2014-01-24 02:20:09

AlaskaDave
Member
From: Homer, Alaska ; Chiang Mai
Registered: 2013-09-21
Posts: 440
Website

Re: Argh! Stupas as Wireless masts...

man_made=temple,   ruins=yes    not clear what is better, needs some more thought.

So, you're proposing adding a new man_made=temple tag?

I like the ruins=yes tag because it allows one to tag any ruins regardless of historical value, about which a casual mapper might not be aware. I'm not sure how it affects the tower:type=stupa discussion, however.

Offline

#34 2014-01-24 12:32:14

EndlessRoundabout
Member
Registered: 2013-11-27
Posts: 41

Re: Argh! Stupas as Wireless masts...

AlaskaDave wrote:

man_made=temple,   ruins=yes    not clear what is better, needs some more thought.

So, you're proposing adding a new man_made=temple tag?

I like the ruins=yes tag because it allows one to tag any ruins regardless of historical value, about which a casual mapper might not be aware. I'm not sure how it affects the tower:type=stupa discussion, however.


No definite proposal yet, just thinking out loud, seems still ongoing discussions perhaps. But in any case,
yes, the ruins=yes   does sound good, because it could potentially be attached to building.

as to stupa, yes, it's off a tangent a bit, on the other hand, stupa could be just a part of the whole framework of how to label wats/temples/palaces and their ruined variants.

One has to cover Mon/Dvaravati, Khmer, and the Thai historical periods for that. Periods before that, e.g. Ban Chiang, Ban Prasat, etc. can be covered with the archeological tags.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB