Talk:Tag:information=map

Proposed extension with the source of the actual map

See discussion at: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-February/051394.html There's map_type and map_size. It would make sense to extend with map_source. It could further be extended with a way to add wether or not the map_source is being attributed on the information board. That could be map_source:attribution, with values like no, insufficient, yes. Here's a map of those maps: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/W8X Joost schouppe (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

"source" sounds confusing regardless of separator or order. If you search https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=map_source, results already suggest possibility misuse. Verifying the "source" and attribution isn't really an exact process. It could be better to use eg map:attribution=OpenStreetMap (ie map_source:attribution=incomplete) to directly quote the precise attribution for further identification and processing. Indeed, or however, attribution=* has been used for a similar meta purpose. For identifying "source" ourselves independently, I'm afraid it may get very complicated with more info and providers on the map (including from the map erecter). Limiting the tag to the base map and style could make it look simpler. -- 18:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, other tags map_type=* and map_size=* are "only" de facto. This tag can be more carefully thought of, as suggested by http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/How-to-map-an-OpenStreetMap-map-tp5959567p5959603.html for its implication. -- Kovposch (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

3d maps

In some cases, 3d maps of an area (sometimes showing historical information) are on display (example). What is the best way to tag these? --Dónal (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

See information=tactile_model, however from the wiki page it appears to be focused at people with limited sight. If you want to map it as an information=map, I would use map_type=topo and, for the example given map_size=site, however this may vary depending on the map. There dosen't yet appear to be a tag to map it as 3D, for yours maybe map_type=3d_model? It only has one use on taginfo, the other being map_type=3D which is too vague and could mean many things. --GoodClover (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

What kind of map is this?

What kind of map is this? And do you think that the extra info justifies the addition of information=board?

Map with Other Info

--IanVG (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Maps embedded into the ground

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1115889347 is a large flat map, big as a automobile, embedded into the pavement. Therefore some maps are not just a single point, they are areas. That's the difference between a map on a signboard, vertical, and a flat map as part of the pavement, horizontal. Jidanni (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

toposcope => tourism=information or tourism=viewpoint ?

The documentation explicitly says that we should use tourism=viewpoint when mapping a toposcope (map_type=toposcope). But information=map requires tourism=information and not a tourism=viewpoint. So it raise an error in JOSM (and probably in other editors/QA tools). Plus it goes against the logic of having a information without tourism=information. But in the mean time, it make sense to have a tourism=viewpoint because toposcope are places that one can have a nice viewpoint.

How should we fix this?

• Fixing JOSM (and other tools)?
• Changing the tagging schema? But how?

--Binnette (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not what "associated" means. There will be a tourism=viewpoint point next to. or area enclosing the map_type=toposcope for the entire facility. --- Kovposch (talk) 05:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Kovposch, thank for your quick response. If I correctly understood, we should map "toposcope" as node (or area) tourism=information + information=map + map_type=toposcope. And then we should add a node next to the toposcope with tourism=viewpoint. If so, I will edit the article to make it clear. Have a nice day. --Binnette (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the wording “associated with” is ambiguous: it could be understood as encouragement to use tourism=viewpoint on the same node. For context, there are 1893 nodes with tourism=information and map_type=toposcope but also 377 nodes with tourism=viewpoint and map_type=toposcope. Clearly quite a few people have tried to express the idea that you have a nice view from the spot where the toposcope is. I’m not sure what the best solution is. Isn't the location of a toposcope always also a viewpoint? (As an aside, when it's a node in an area, then I think it should be a toposcope node inside a viewpoint area - and I think this is what Kovposch was suggesting - not a viewpoint node inside a toposcope area.) --Osmuser63783 (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)