Sokkal elegánsabb lett volna, ha ezt már a módosításkészlet megjegyzésébe is beleírom… No, majd legközelebb. ;-)

A forrás az Európai Unió Kiadóhivatala:
https://publications.europa.eu/code/hu/hu-5001000.htm
Ez az uniós intézményközi kiadványszerkesztési útmutató, amit elég alaposan szerkesztenek többek között tucatnyi magyar fordító és más szereplő közreműködésével, úgyhogy elég hiteles forrásnak tekinthető.

Lieber dieterdreist, carissimo Dino,

please look also at this graph:
http://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/crossing/zebra&***/crossing_ref/zebra

* * * * *

As far as I can see, for a pedestrian crossing you can use both crossing= and crossing_ref= tags for its attributes.

crossing= refers to the type of the crossing e.g. whether it has a traffic signal or just a marking on the pavement.
crossing=*

crossing_ref= refers to the shape of the pedestrian crossing. It was invented for England where there are several shapes of pedestrian crossing (zebra, tiger, pelican, toucan, puffin, whatever). Since in continental Europe each and every pedestrian crossing is "zebra", it has little use but it does not harm either.
crossing_ref=*

If you use crossing=zebra, you mix the above attributes. Actually, as the OSM wiki states, "it has gained worldwide usage with the _temporary_ adoption by iD editor", however, as you can see on the above graph, in the last two years its usage almost stagnated (in contrast of crossing_id=zebra).

Thus what I have done was to change crossing=zebra to crossing_ref=zebra. No information was lost but the consistency of the map was improved. I don't think it was dangerous or harming of any aspect.

Lieber dieterdreist,

please look also at this graph:
http://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/crossing/zebra&***/crossing_ref/zebra

* * * * *

As far as I can see, for a pedestrian crossing you can use both crossing= and crossing_ref= tags for its attributes.

crossing= refers to the type of the crossing e.g. whether it has a traffic signal or just a marking on the pavement.
crossing=*

crossing_ref= refers to the shape of the pedestrian crossing. It was invented for England where there are several shapes of pedestrian crossing (zebra, tiger, pelican, toucan, puffin, whatever). Since in continental Europe each and every pedestrian crossing is "zebra", it has little use but it does not harm either.
crossing_ref=*

If you use crossing=zebra, you mix the above attributes. Actually, as the OSM wiki states, "it has gained worldwide usage with the _temporary_ adoption by iD editor", however, as you can see on the above graph, in the last two years its usage almost stagnated (in contrast of crossing_id=zebra).

Thus what I have done was to change crossing=zebra to crossing_ref=zebra. No information was lost but the consistency of the map was improved. I don't think it was dangerous or harming of any aspect.

Carissimo Dino,
anche cosi' mantengo la mia posizione che ho cambiato solo i pedestrian crossings. Se i loro puntini fanno parte di strade, allora puo' sembrare che anche la strada stessa sia stata modificata.

Direi di no, almeno non con intenzione. Spero che non abbia rotto nessuna relazione importante o cose del genere…

I have simply changed crossing=zebra to crossing_ref=zebra. Nothing was removed.

Kedves Hungarian_user!

Légy szíves, megfontoltan használd a különféle AI-segédleteket, mert ha nem egészen egyértelmű az épület körvonala, akkor eléggé elnagyolt eredményt tudnak adni, mint például itt:
way/1087747455

Az utcában egy csomó más ház is elég furcsa szögben áll, illetve a műholdfelvétel alapján nyilvánvalóan nem úgy néz ki, mint ahogy most ott van.

Például way/1087747462 vagy way/1087747459 stb.

A mennyiség helyett talán érdemes inkább a minőségre törekedni.

Illetve mindig a FÖMI ortofotóit érdemes alapul venni, mert azok a legpontosabbak (bár a felbontásuk lehetne nagyobb). Hozzájuk lehet igazítani a többi műholdképet.

Köszönjük!

Gábor

Great, thank you!
Gábor

Hi,
yes, this is probably my mistake. It was a simple building (probably this one way/305715271) composed of two ways and tagged as a multipolygon. I converted it into one way and a simple polygon, however, probably didn't delete the relation itself. Sorry.

I don't know, how should I fix it because I can't find it on the map anymore…

Bye

Gábor

Salve Lorenzo,
la roverella di Roccaporena non sembra un nome proprio. Non l'ho trovato da nessuna parte (eccetto su OSM e pagine che si riferiscono di OSM). Quindi questo non sembra la roverella ma una roverella di Roccaporena (anche se grande come gia' si vede dal tag "denotation").
Che cosa ne pensi?
Saluti
Gábor

Igen, de csak azért, mert a helyszínen elfelejtettem feltölteni a Vespucciból. ;-)

Esiste davvero questo bagno al santuario di Greccio?

Szia! Igen, ebben technikailag teljesen igazad van, ugyanakkor szerintem hasznos/kényelmes, ha ezen is rajta van; hátránya meg nem nagyon akad: nem félrevezető, nem zavaró…
Gábor

Igazad van, elnéztem. Sorry!
Gábor

Hallo Martin,

ich habe die Abgrenzung an den deutschen Wiki-Seiten gefunden:

osm.wiki/DE:Tag:artwork_type%3Dstatue
„Für eine Statue, die eine historische Person darstellt und gedenkt, benutze historic=memorial + memorial=statue.”

Und osm.wiki/DE:Tag:memorial%3Dstatue
„tourism=artwork + artwork_type=statue - Kunstwerk ohne Namensbezug”

Gruß,
Gábor

Hallo Martin,

ehrlich gesagt bin ich nicht so tief in die feinen Details eingegangen…

Ob ein historisches Ereignis groß genug ist, einen Objekt als 'monument' zu bezeichnen, ist eine Interpretationsfrage. Die verschiedenen Schlachte der Römer scheinen für mich 2021 weniger bedeutend zu sein aber für sie waren sie wahrscheinlich sehr wichtig, also können den Objekt als 'monument' qualifizieren.

Wenn der Janusbogen an gar nichts erinnert, dann ist es vielleicht eher fragwürdig, ob er ein 'monument' sei. Aber bessere Ideen habe ich auch nicht: barrier=gate wäre ja doof, vielleicht building=? (z.B. building=roof)? Aber diese Bezeichnung können ja auch umstritten werden…

Und der Arco degli Argentari ist wahrscheinlich noch weniger ein 'monument': er ist weder groß noch hat eine Erinnerungsfunktion:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentarierbogen
In seinem Fall sollte man doch eher eine andere Eigenschaft finden.

Tschüß

Gábor

Dear Martin,

(könnte man Dir eigentlich nicht auf Deutsch schreiben? Mir wäre es bequemer.)

I may agree that a city gate is something specific and not the best tagging option. Let's discuss it.

However, I strongly disagree that they would be monuments. Monuments are a very specific, indeed a very rare tag. Monuments should be very large and commemorate a very significant historic event or person. It is very common that they are misused.

For more information see the warning section at historic=monument

There is even an application to identify (falsely tagged) monuments:
osm.wiki/CheckTheMonuments

Cheers

Gábor

According to OSM wiki, the difference between a tourism=artwork and a historic=memorial + memorial statue is whether they represent a named figure or not.

For example if there is a statue of a bird or ship or even of an unnamed girl on a street, that is a tourism=artwork. If there is a statue of e.g. Giordano Bruno, then it is an historic=memorial.

Also according to OSM wiki, monuments are a very rare species: they should be very big ('monumental') and commemorate of a very big event. Even if something is mentioned as "monumento" in everyday language, it does not entail that it should be mapped as an historic=monument on OSM.

Though they are indeed no city gates in a literally sense, however, since I don't know any OSM tags for triuph arches (and, actually, there cannot be separate tags for each type of object) it seems a good idea to be a bit abstract and add a tag similar to it.