What do you suggest for specifying the kind illuminant of asked 21 Mar '11, 09:56  bot47 edited 21 Mar '11, 10:09  Frederik Ramm ♦ |
3 Answers:
It seems that people are already making a distinction between gas lamps, fluorescent, and incandescent lamps via the Note that OpenStreetMap has a strong tradition of human-readable tagging, so most people would probably prefer if you spell out tag values rather than using abbreviations from the table of elements. answered 21 Mar '11, 10:08 Frederik Ramm ♦ edited 22 Jul '11, 16:49  Jonathan Ben... |
Also consider looking at a new proposed feature lamp. Under that scheme you would map it as lamp:light=mercury. That proposal also has many other options for adding detail, like the shape of the light produced, power source, color, and more. And if you think there's something wrong with the scheme, please add your comments to the talk page. answered 21 Mar '11, 12:19  JoshD |
There already is a lit=yes on the sport tags, perhaps you could do lit=yes (mercury|sodium|incandescent|arc|big_death_star_laser_thingy) I think this is similar to a tree tag, where you only note very specific lamps that may be historical or significant in nature, for a highway or sports field the lit tag seems to be a better use. An example of a significant lamp would a moonlight tower in Austin Texas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight_tower answered 21 Jul '11, 21:58  Sundance |
There is also the tag [lit_by_gaslight][1] has several hundred uses with a strong cluster in the Dusseldorf area. It would be nice to have the ability to describe the characteristics of the lighting in a more universal way without having to map individual lamp posts.
I think the one who is interested in this will understand chemical symbols.