Proposal talk:Guard stone

How are these distinguished from bollards?

The tag barrier=bollard seems fairly similar to this. In the USA, bollards are often placed next to other objects (lampposts, supports for traffic lights, bridge structures, etc) to prevent motor vehicles from colliding with the protected object. If this new tag is needed, it would be important to define how it is different from barrier=bollard. --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The difference apart from their position is the historical value of them. Often, as in the example in Dublin, the guard stones are part of the protected structure of a building which cannot be said about bollards. If someone historically interested wanted to research the distribution or density in a historical town center, they need to be distinguishable from bollards, in my opinion. Furthermore, as mentioned in the description, some of them feature benchmarks/ crowsfeet (at least in Ireland and I presume the UK) and are thus survey markers. Bollards would not have been used for that purpose. B-unicycling (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

This proposed guard stone feature can already be tagged as barrier=bollard + material=stone + historic=yes + height=*, which serves the same purpose. --Mxdanger (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The definition on the barrier=bollard page is "One or more solid (usually concrete or metal) pillar(s) in the middle of the road to prevent passage by some traffic". Guard stones are not in the middle of the road and therefore do not fall under this definition. They are also not preventing access like bollards do. Those are two parts of the definition for bollards which are contradicting to the definition of guard stones. Logically it follows that a guard stone is not a bollard. B-unicycling (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Many currently mapped bollards are at the edge of a road, so that definition isn't correct. The page Tag:barrier=bollard shows examples of bollards which are along a sidewalk at the edge of a road: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Sonata_construction_April_2020_(3).jpg. Also the text says "Bollards may be used to block vehicular traffic completely while allowing passage of pedestrians and bicycles, or to prevent criminals using vehicles from ramming shops." - the ones used to protect shops are quite similar to the purpose of a guard stone. --Jeisenbe (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Bollards at the side of the road prevent cars from parking or driving on the sidewalk, I always thought. B-unicycling (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Usually that's true, but they also prevent cars from colliding with buildings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollard#/media/File:Bollard_ramkraakbeveiliging.jpg "Security bollard in front of a shop doorway, placed to deter ram-raiders"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollard#/media/File:Truck_collision_with_a_rebounding_bollard.jpg "Truck collision with a rebounding bollard"

https://www.reliance-foundry.com/bollard/all-bollards/r-7155-bollard#gref - see the second photo which shows a bollard right next to the corner of a building

https://www.externalworksindex.co.uk/entry/119976/Architectural-Street-Furnishings/ASF-building-protection-corner-bollard/ - "ASF building protection corner bollard" ... "Protects building corners from vehicle damage". This last one looks and works exactly like a guard stone, but it's metal of course. --Jeisenbe (talk)

As a linguist and historian, I believe that things should be called by their proper name and that we shouldn't succumb to the simplified language of online shops that have undergone SEO. The last example is a guard stone, even though that shop calls it a bollard, because many people do not have a vocabulary which includes a distinction between a bollard and a guard stone and thus will not look for a guard stone. Nonetheless, the definition of a guard stone and a bollard is not the same and the same word should not be used. OSM is pretty systematic so far (in my opinion), I think it should stay this way. B-unicycling (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: "many people do not have a vocabulary which includes a distinction between a bollard and a guard stone and thus will not look for a guard stone”. Yes that's the probolem, and many OpenStreetMap users do not speak English, and may have no word for a “guard stone” in their language, so there has to be a physical, visible difference between the two terms if we are going to expect them to be used consistently. Hence my suggestion to consider these a kind of bollard, practically. --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Giving translations for a key in other languages was not part of the "Proposed feature" template, but I have added some anyway. This should help those people who have guard stones in their country and language mapping them. If you don't have them in your country/ mapping area, I don't expect you to know the name, even if you do have them. As I said on the proposal page, they are an "often overlooked feature". If you don't think/ talk about an item, you probably won't know the word for it. That does not keep you from tripping over it, though, as in the case of the woman in Dublin. B-unicycling (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

A guard stone is definitely distinguishable from a bollard. 99 % of guard stones are part of a building whereas 99,99 % of bollards are not. I would never call a bollard a guard stone, but sometimes guard stones are indeed small pole-like structures that are built into a building. Guard stones are immediately recognisable and special enough to be a feature of their own. I approve this proposal.--Kogacarlo (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

If that's the case, I would be quite happy with the proposal if it were amended to make this more clear, e.g.: "A guard stone is a stone built into the wall of a building or gare, usually found on either side of an entrace to a laneway or gateway..." --Jeisenbe (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I adjusted the definition. Hope that helps. I'm not familiar with Proposed features. --Kogacarlo (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I support this proposal as a jostle stone came about in the time of horse drawn vehicles instead of cars, so their design, placement, look and variety differ from the modern bollard. tadcan

Rendering

The topic of how it is rendered has not been talked about in the proposal but if I were to guess, it would be the same as the barrier=bollard? If that is the case, then this tag just creates unnecessary complexity that doesn't bring practical benefits, where the ambiguous bollard can be used instead. How exactly would this tag help provide better data to mapping services if most don't even use data from bollard in the first place? --Mxdanger (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The infobox says "rendered as: hidden". But if it needs a rendering suggestion, I will work on one. B-unicycling (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It says: Guard stones may be put alongside a wall to protect it.. So some guard stones are not alongside a wall? How are they to be mapped? ___Rorym (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

They are either on building corners, sometimes at a distance between the corner and the guard stone, or along the wall. So either they are mapped as the corner node or as additional nodes along the way that is the outer wall of a building. B-unicycling (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Is rendering of our concern at all? If I find guard stones I will map them whether they are rendered or not.
Concerning the rendering problemː a guard stone is usually outside of a building, like mentioned by others. But sitting in some wall surrounding a garden it will be on the streetside. Has anyone a suggestion how to tag that? I suggest using the tag direction=forward for a stone right side of the wall and direction=backward for a stone left side of the wall. That is looking in the direction of the way the stone is in.
Without direction tag the stone may be centered in the wall. --Kogacarlo (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Not a barrier

This is not a barrier. I would suggest putting it under the key man_made=*. Lectrician1 (talk)

Sorry, I'm only seeing this now. I see your point, but I still think barrier is better, because the guard stones diminuish the width of the passage for a vehicle and make it at least slow down, if not prevent from entering altogether.B-unicycling (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm with (Lectrician1) on this one in that I would prefer man_made=*. There are numerous other items of street furniture which diminish the width of a street or pavement which we don't tag as barriers: trees, tree pits, bus shelters, rubbish bins, lamp posts, telegraph poles, CCTV poles, street cabinets and benches all within 250 m of where I'm sitting. It probably doesn't actually matter because sensible data consumers stopped processing bollard=yes and other unknown values of bollard a long time ago (and also see barrier=kerb which also does not behave the same as other linear barriers), but I think the principle of avoiding tags values from potentially changing the generic meaning of the key is a good one. SK53 (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Off course it's a barrier. Also barrier=fence is a barrier. There are numerous barriers such as ditch, fence, handrail, guard ̠ rail, hedge, wall, that are not intersected with a highway. I don't care what data consumers or renderers say. I don't get your point.--Kogacarlo (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The documentation on barrier=* reads "a barrier is a physical structure which blocks or impedes movement.". A guard stone is intended to impede movement, and in that regard is no different from barrier=guard_rail. I don't see how we could include barrier=guard_rail but exclude guard stone. IMO, guard stone does belong in barrier=* unless perhaps we are considering them to be ancient artifacts that are no longer performing the guard function --ZeLonewolf (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

A guard rail is well a barrier. It's often a freestanding element and you cannot simply cross it. A guard stone, in my opinion, is a component of a structure. — OK, you can of course erect barriers for design purposes, without hindering passage. But the idea of a barrier is to cut off or restrict a connection, even if it is only a line of sight. Barriers like fence or wall can be used to create intersections with paths, so that then their meaning or function can be defined. What would be so wrong with man_made? I don't want to go to extremes against barrier, but prefer the other. Regards --Chris2map (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Imagine if you were to remove the guard stone, and replace it with a small bit of guard rail that fits in the same footprint as where the guard stone was. It would be performing the same function as the guard stone, right? --ZeLonewolf (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes you're right and I wouldn't tag it as a barrier. --Chris2map (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Two comparisons may help a bit to get the way of thinking of not assigning to barrier:

1) The parallel of a guard on a structure is a bumper on a car. In a broad sense it can also be understood as a barrier, but essentially it is a part or feature of the vehicle.

2) And a quiet theoretical one, if you put a bathtub in garden as a flower bed. It is still a bathtub, but it can no longer be labeled as such a feature, as the function is different. You would have to tag it as a flower bed in the form of a bathtub.

Let's see what a majority feels more comfortable with. Greetings --Chris2map (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, that bathtub analogy doesn't make much sense. A guard rail is a barrier between the road and a dangerous area beyond the road. A guard stone is a barrier between the road and a building. In any case, my "no" vote is based on the problematic "direction" tagging. Provided that the direction question is resolved, I won't object to either key being used, though my preference is barrier=*. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

How do you feel about my suggestion of direction=forward/backward? direction=forward would mean the stone being on the right side of the line, just as natural=cliff has by definition the low side on the right. direction=backward would mean the stone being on the left.--Kogacarlo (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

If these are always on buildings, then can't we just assume that they're on the outside of the building? Is there a case where it's ambiguous as to which side of the way the guard stone is on? If there is, it should be left and right, as described in Forward_&_backward,_left_&_right --ZeLonewolf (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Oops, left and right is new tagging for me but even more simpel. A guard stone may be protecting a wall between a narrow street and a garden. The wall could be a two-node way. Some nodes could be placed in that way with guard ̠ stone=left or guard ̠ stone=right, depending on the direction of that way.--Kogacarlo (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not overly familiar with rendering problems, but I have come to the conclusion that the direction tag only makes sense when the guard stones are placed along a free standing wall, which is probably a very rare case (when there used to be a building behind it, but it has been demolished). So people can stop obsessing about the direction tag, please. B-unicycling (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)