Talk:Key:landmark
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Key:landmark article and its related topics. |
|---|
|
Important notes
Moved from main page.
- This key has never been really discussed publicly. This thread on the tagging mailing list suggests to deprecate these landmark tags when it's already existing and use instead a generic "maritime_landmark=yes". For instance, instead of "landuse=cemetery" + "landmark=cemetery", use "landuse=cemetery" + "maritime_landmark=yes". --Pieren 18:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note that maritime_landmark=yes is also undiscused and unused.
- Since established seamark tagging scheme there is seamark:type=landmark; see also Seamarks/Landmarks. --Chris2map 8 January 2023
Why not use landmark as a flag?
By using landmark=yes you could flag any object a landmark. The current list duplicates values for objects, that are already described in OSM, or could be described in OSM with their usual tags (in their classification). Everything can be a landmark, this depends on the surrounding/context, not mainly on the object itself. -- Dieterdreist 12:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. landmark=* doesn't seem to be well established yet. Maybe it would help to reduce the overwhelming features and just use it as a flag for what's important (skyline, visible without googles, ....) --!i!
13:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh god, this landmark thing is so confusing. Should we use landmark=*, denotation=landmark or landmark=yes? Please don't introduce the key landmark! --Derstefan 19:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. Landmarks also refer more commonly to notable features anywhere. It's something that I've been pondering a lot since moving to Haiti in 2010 where essentially all road navigation / finding places is based on landmarks: "Turn left at where there used to be that kiosk..." This broader use of landmarks is, it seems to me, an emerging issue in OSM, too. There was a presentation at the SoTM last fall about landmarks and OSM. I wonder if it would make sense to separate the sea navigation landmarks (as they are used) from the more generic use of landmarks. .. After all, that kiosk/supermarket/big_tree aren't of any use to sea navigation. And on the other hand some of the sea navigation landmarks -- even if technically visible to people at shore -- may just be confusing if it's not possible to filter them out. .. If the "generic landmarks" would see broader use, that is.. --JaakkoH 04:32, 9 July 2012 (BST)
- I agree that this could be done better, such as landmark=yes on existing tags, but I believe this all have been drawn up by somebody preparing a complicated and super-redundant tagging scheme for tagging marine map features. There have been several conventions on how to do marine mapping, I belong to one of them, and unfortienately there are little will within some of the conventions to approach each other. The convention I belong to want to use existing OSM tags as much as possible, and suggests new tags to fill in where are missing. I am even willing to accept tags from the other conventions as long as they dont duplicate existing accepted features. --Skippern 01:28, 31 August 2012 (BST)
- I've come to this page specifically because I recently came to the independent conclusion that we needed a tag landmark=X. There might be a better option, but I was pondering the way that traditional UK (Ordnance Survey) maps are easier sometimes to interpret because of their highlighting specifically of church spires and towers... and on the other hand the presence near to me of a church which is mapped on OSM but which inhabits a corner of a school (and therefore isn't a landmark at all). I concluded that the only way to create a map in which we know to look for something on the ground when a church is mapped is to highlight what is a landmark (or at least the only simple way - I can think of more complicated ideas, but none worth considering further). Partly this thinking came about while contemplating that it would be useful on my GPS device when navigating to be able to hide all the information points except those highlighting landmarks. Rostranimin (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that this could be done better, such as landmark=yes on existing tags, but I believe this all have been drawn up by somebody preparing a complicated and super-redundant tagging scheme for tagging marine map features. There have been several conventions on how to do marine mapping, I belong to one of them, and unfortienately there are little will within some of the conventions to approach each other. The convention I belong to want to use existing OSM tags as much as possible, and suggests new tags to fill in where are missing. I am even willing to accept tags from the other conventions as long as they dont duplicate existing accepted features. --Skippern 01:28, 31 August 2012 (BST)
- I also agree. Something B (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Plaque material
Apparently a plaque has to be metal? There's one in Bingley which is stone, set into the ground. I'm assuming that this counts, too!
Visibility
It would be helpful on this page to say something about what makes a landmark a landmark - obvious perhaps, but such statements usually begin to flush out any issues. I'd suggest "Features are tagged as landmarks to highlight that they stand out from the surrounding landscape, although not necessarily from a great distance. Remember than there is usually a way to tag something to describe it without suggesting it as a landmark." Rostranimin (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)