Talk:Proposed features/flagpole

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

unsolved

ways

I would recommend to allow the modelling using a single way. Often there is a whole bunch of flags. For example 3D Viewers would allow this way model to understand that this poles belong "together" and that they should look the same. --!i! 17:42, 9 October 2010 (BST)


solved

The key lit is used for road lighting lit. User 5359 18:09, 29 September 2010 (BST)

yes. it describes, that the flag is illuminated like this one [1]

seamark

Ich finde man_made=flagpole ok.
Es gibt zwar in der S-57 auch einen Flaggenmast, aber der ist dann spezifisch nur für nautische Zwecke. --Markus 21:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what a flagpole has to do with seamarks. Flagpoles are found on land and not in the sea. Flagpoles can be navigational landmarks for anybody, including ships. But apart from that flagpoles have nothing to do with the sea.
I don't know german and don't fully understand your question. But I think you are reffering to the proposal Proposed_features/marine-tagging witch define landmark=flagpole. This proposal derives from sea map standards and sometimes might differ from the osm standard. For example they tags towers as landmark=tower while there is extensive use of man_made=tower in osm. I think we should use man_made=flagpole because it makes more sense and that a flagpole is not always a landmark. --Gnonthgol 23:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Flagpoles that are clearly visible from sea are marked on some nautical charts as they can be used as position references. This should than be tagged with landmark=flagpole in addition to the marks laid down from this proposal. --Skippern 14:42, 27 August 2010 (BST)
If I understands you right you propose that information about wether or not the flagpole is visible from the sea to be added to the node as landmark=flagpole. I don't get why this is not possible to deduce from the geographical position of the flagpole? Is it so important do distinguish from them that sea maps can not display flagpoles not visible from the sea? Also it might be sufficient to tag it seamark=landmark man_made=flagpole Gnonthgol 15:59, 27 August 2010 (BST)
Not personally caring what it's called: hills and forests might hide some coastal flagpoles, while elsewhere poles further inland are visible. Elevation data freely available (SRTM) doesn't have sufficient detail, and doesn't cover lots of populated shores, for example north of (approx) 61° N. Alv 16:18, 27 August 2010 (BST)

Historic?

This proposal misses what in my opinion is the most important factor, namely: Of what key should this be a tag? My proposal would be to put it under historic, because of existing tags it seems closest to memorial and monument. Also, the important thing would be the flag, not the pole, in my opinion. Thus, I would go with historic=flag. - Andre Engels 07:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

A flag pole does not have to be historic at all. Flag poles are often used in garrisons and official buildings amongst others. The best tag for this is man_made=flagpole. --Gnonthgol 09:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I support man_made=flagpole. --Kslotte 13:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)



can be discussed later in enchanchment of flagpole

Additional tags

May be height, flag=(governmental,company,signal,...), base=(yes/no/NA) --Jstein 02:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What about how often there is a flag (daily, always, never, on official flag days ...) or what the flag pole is used for (signaling, marking sovereignty, signaling precence of an important person, signaling access restrictions ...) Additional existing tags might be name, operator, height ... --Gnonthgol 09:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What key would you suggest to describe "how often"? Is recurrence or occurrence well chosen? (I am not a native english speaker.) --Jstein 15:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

height

Might be better to say that without units is metres, otherwise specify units (in line with other similar tags such as maxheight/maxwidth). It'll be used that way anyway if the proposal gets through. -- EdLoach 15:39, 1 October 2010 (BST)