Proposed features/guard stone

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
guard stone
Status: Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by: b-unicycling
Tagging: barrier=guard_stone
Applies to: node
Definition: A guard stone is in most cases a stone built onto or into the corner of a building or wall. They are usually found on either side of an entrance to a laneway or gateway. Guard stones may be put alongside a wall to protect it. Many are historical barriers that kept the wheels of carriages from damaging buildings. Some of them bear survey markers such as benchmarks.
Rendered as: hidden
Drafted on: 2020-12-03
RFC start: 2020-12-07
Vote start: 2020-12-21
Vote end: 2021-01-04

Proposal

Guard stones or jostle stones are an architectural element and an often overlooked part of street furniture which has historical roots: To avoid collisions (jostling) between the wheels of horse-drawn carriages and the walls on either side of a lane or gateposts, guard stones were placed at entrances and sometimes along walls. Towns with a historic center still feature them. They are not necessarily made of stone, more recent examples are instead made of metal (Brandenburg Gate in Berlin uses decommissioned canons).

Rationale

Many guard stones are part of the historic heritage. Furthermore, they are obstacles for visually impaired or intoxicated pedestrians, as the example from Temple Bar shows: Woman who suffered 'minor in the extreme' injuries after pub fall loses €60k claim

Some examples go back to Roman times and they are generally very common in Europe. They differ from bollards in that they do not prevent access for vehicles, but as architectural elements rather protect buildings and in times gone by also vehicles from damage.

Examples

See Wikimedia for more examples from Northern Ireland, France, Belgium, Germany and other countries.

In other languages

Language word(s) for guard stone
English jostle stone, chasse-roue
German Prellstein, Radabweiser, Kratzstein, Abweichstein, Abweiser, Radstößer
French chasse-roue, chasse-moyeux
Spanish guardacantón
Italian paracarro
Russian Колёсоотбойная тумба
Chech Nnárožní kámen
Dutch schamppaal, schampsteen, boordsteen, stootsteen

Tagging

They would be placed at the corner nodes of buildings or building passages.

barrier=guard_stone

optional: material=

historic=yes

heritage=yes (only if it is a protected structure by the local heritage office, should come with a ref=*)

optional: height=*

optional: direction=*

Applies to

Nodes

Rendering

Features/Pages affected

key:barrier

External links

External discussions

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.

Voting

Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was rejected with 15 votes for, 16 votes against and 5 abstentions.

The consensus with the voters who voted "oppose" was that a guard stone does not qualify as a barrier, but rather should be in the man_made namespace. Although I do not agree entirely, I will accept the democratic vote and will start a new proposal for man_made=guard_stone.

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Eireidium (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Komadinovic Vanja (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Larryolaoi (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I would have preferred a tag from a different key space, like man_made or historic, because I see barrier=* mostly for objects which are mapped on a highway, railway, waterway or similar, but can still agree to this. --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Kogacarlo (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I am confused by direction=* as used in examples --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
From the examples, it looks like they are describing a compass direction, i.e. 90 degrees=east. This is strange as this geometry can be determined from the shape of the way that the node is on. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Fanfouer (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Like Dieterdreist I would have preferred man_made (but not historic) rather than barrier. Like Mateusz I have issues with direction (it doesn't seem applicable except for micro-rendering but could be computed from the building outline anyway). But I can live with this. --Brian de Ford (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. My suggestion of putting this under man_made=* was never addressed. Other people have suggested this as well. Why are putting this under barrier why the Key:barrier page specifically states:
"A barrier is a physical structure which blocks or impedes movement. The barrier tag only covers on-the-ground barriers"
This feature does not block movement in any way. It is clearly a mostly-decorative feature.
Seems like this vote is going the lazy way of just approving this instead of maintaining consistency in tagging schemes. --Lectrician1 (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I have replied to your comment on the Talk page, as I had only seen it today. I think if someone can fall over it and break an arm, it blocks movement. B-unicycling (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I second Lectrician1's argument. --501Ghost (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I agree with lectrician's concerns that this does not seem like it is actually a barrier tag in the sense of the namespace. --Recoil16 (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I don't believe this should be under 'barrier' if it doesn't function as one. Aren't guard stones a part of buildings (the footing of the building)? --ForgottenHero (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I agree with the others who have opposed this, it is not a barrier and should not be placed under 'barrier'. --Riiga (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. The use of direction=* is pointless as they don't point a specific way and what side of the way they are on can be inferred from which side of the way is outside the building. As people above have said, man_made=guard_stone would make more sense than barrier=guard_stone. --GoodClover (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. For pretty much the same reasons that were already mentioned by others. I like the idea of a tag for guard stones, but they should not be in the barrier namespace and I don't believe that the direction tag is necessary. --Woazboat (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Either historic=* or man_made=* (as much as I don't like it because it's so overloaded) would be a better fit for this. Guard stones that are not directly attached to the building should also be considered in this proposal (example). These should not be tagged as nodes on the building outline but rather as separate detached nodes. --Woazboat (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I object to the direction=* tag being included. That information can be determined from the geometry of the way that the node is placed on. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I said this as well, until I saw Woazboat's example of a a guard stone detached from a building above, where it is not possible to infer the direction from the geometry. I think that if it's on a building way (i.e. attached to a building) the direction=* is unnecessary, and do we even need to map the direction anyways? --GoodClover (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the direction really matters even for guard stones that are not attached to walls --Woazboat (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --DeB1gC (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC) ::: This is a good addition, but may need refinement at some later point. Logically there is no way a bollard is the same thing. I don't think a guard stone can be separate from a building. This tag will only apply to older streetscapes, but might be interesting to help identify what is an archaic practise in street design, so on balance - vote to accept.
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I don't think direction=* should be used. Changing to man_made=* might be better, but I could support either option if the direction=* tag is removed. --Jeisenbe (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Ibanez (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I think, a barrier has to have a shared node or an intersection with a way (highway) to define the access. A guard stone is rather a part of a structure. A key for this is good, but I therefore prefer man_made. --Chris2map (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --JB (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC) Please don't use barrier.
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. -- I don't see a good reason to map those at all but if you want to, I see Lectrician's reasoning. Fnordson (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --lutz (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I have several issues with this proposal. Per other comments, man_made=* seems like a better fit than barrier=*, although for accessible navigation reasons I can see using barrier=*. The use of direction=* is not well-explained in the two example images, although this could be rectified. In any case, it seems like a less-than-useful attempt at describing the geometry of the stone, especially when the likely more important radius is not considered. The other issue I have with the proposal is that they seem more like an extension of the footprint of the building itself than a separate feature. Mapping them as part of the building footprint would also allow the geometry to be more accurately described. --Eiim (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. It seems like a perfectly reasonable addition for historical reasons. --AmandaHatesGoogle (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Canfe (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Personally I don't see why this would be necessary to map at all. But I understand that I might not see some needs that other people see. But if someone wants to find all barriers hindering movement, for example trough an Overpass search, these things should not show up, since they clearly do not hinder movement, and that is the definition of a barrier. So I vote no. --Forteller (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Nothing is “necessary” to map, but it isn’t a tagging discussion, it is a relevance discussion when it comes to mapping. Everybody decides individually if she wants to map something or not. As you can see from the positive votes above, there are people who want to map this. Regarding the barrier aspect: these generally reduce the width of the way, so they clearly are a kind of barrier. —Dieterdreist (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Guards stone, in old time, were mainly made to protect walls corners. Because "horse-drawn carriage" with larges wheels damaged walls. By itself it's not a barrier (see typical example above "Guard stones in Schlossstraße"). In case where they are used like barriers they are more bollards than guards stone, see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_stone --Rej (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I guess you would also vote no to barrier=entrance? --Dieterdreist (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, I for one WOULD vote No to barrier=entrance; an entrance is not a barrier.--PeterPan99 (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Sorry, but like several others above, I do not agree the guard stones are a barrier. --PeterPan99 (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

All people that think a guard stone is not a barrier should try to walk or drive through one. Maybe after that you'll think different.
A guard stone is the same as barrier=guard_rail but shorter. Kogacarlo

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Whb (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I consider these stones to be a part of the building they protect. --Vademecum (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. This will add useful detail to historical buildings. --Tadcan (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. See lectrician's argument --Thetornado76 (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I understand on one hand the aim of the proposal especially for visually impaired people, but on the other hand i think that it is an unneccessary tag for them because the building itself is a much greater "barrier". --TheBlackMan (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I agree with capturing these historical features but would like to see the concerns from Lectrician1 and others addressed before it is approved. man_made=guard_stone seems more appropriate. --Dónal (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)