|
I am referring to an excellent park map which has points at various places along trails and at trail junctions. Most of these are numbered (1 to 24) and are tied to a separate "guide" to these points of interest (ruins, natural features, etc.). I would rather NOT use historic = archaeological_site however that's the "best fit" that I can find. Perhaps a new feature needs to be created. There are marked posts at these locations with the numbers on them so that a person with a paper or digital guide can refer to that guide to interpret the numbered post. |
|
There are a lot of tags you have not looked at. Just search on taginfo. You will find historic=ruins as well as tags for many natural features. The numbers can be tagged with ref=*. |
|
Sounds like information=guidepost perhaps? Quite well-used in taginfo. And like Gnonthgol said, use "ref" for the actual number. |
|
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:information=board offers many variations depending on what information is displayed (in your case: information=board, board_type=history). Sometimes it's a bit hard to decide what is the dominant feature of the sign, but that's a classic OSM dilema. If you want to note the number, I'd suggest putting it in the name tag. Not great, but that's the best I could think of when numbering the station crosses in christian pilgrim paths (not the same thing as your boards, but I think the same convention should apply). In defense of my "name=1" vs "ref=1" suggestion: those particular numbers have meaning beyond just an ID needed by the local authority to track its assets. They are normaly meant to be visited in order, for example. A "ref=" is bureaucratic in nature (even if it is sometimes used as a de-facto name) whereas a "name=" is information that the viewer is expeted to be interested in.
(01 Nov '11, 11:12)
Vincent de P... ♦
|
|
If they are numbered on a sign on the ground, they are welcome in OSM with the suggestions above. However, if these numbers only appear on a particular guide, then probably not. |
