henke54
September 13, 2017, 6:50pm
1
The word Boundary marker is ‘all-encompassing’ , because a boundary_stone is a boundary_marker, but not all boundary_markers are IN STONE ;
Boundary markers , traditionally, were often made of stone, but later many have been made with concrete or a mixture of materials . They are typically placed at a notable or especially visible point. Many are inscribed with relevant information such as the abbreviation of the boundary holder and often a date.
Also a visible icon-tag in OSM should be nice
A border is an official property line that marks where one country/state ends and another begins.
The border is patrolled.
The border between Mexico and the US has been changed by treaty several times in history due to the changing course of the Rio Grande.
There are welcome centers built along the major highways where they cross the state borders.
Boundary generally refers to lines that delimit property (private or public) within a country.
The boundaries of my farm are shown on this map.
Last night, he crossed the boundary of the national park.
However, border and boundary are sometimes used interchangably.
Frontier - this is not a line, but an area that is not developed. A frontier can span borders.
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/sHq
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Boundary+marker
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dboundary_stone
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5103311267
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q921099
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenspaal
http://www.grenspalen.nl/webdoc5-links.html
http://grensmarkeringen.be/
kocio
(kocio)
October 10, 2017, 4:40pm
2
I have once made a ‘propose’ on that gravitystorm , and it was ‘rejected’ , so, i am not going to try there anything anymore →
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1735
If somebody else would, fine for me …
IIVQ
(IIVQ)
November 7, 2017, 9:46pm
4
I really agree to both making it a boundary=marker and material=stone.
There are many historic=border_stone’s that are neither stone nor historic (in the sense of “a historical relic”)
I also really agree to adding boundary markers to any boundary relations.
If a boundary marker is a node on a boundary, then it’s easy to infer what boundaries the marker is a member of.
Yet many boundary markers are not on exact the boundary per se but close, e.g. on both sides of a stream, where the actual boundary is through the middle.
IIVQ:
I really agree to both making it a boundary=marker and material=stone.
There are many historic=border_stone’s that are neither stone nor historic (in the sense of “a historical relic”)
I also really agree to adding boundary markers to any boundary relations.
If a boundary marker is a node on a boundary, then it’s easy to infer what boundaries the marker is a member of.
Yet many boundary markers are not on exact the boundary per se but close, e.g. on both sides of a stream, where the actual boundary is through the middle.
+1 exactly … i made a proposal on tagging list, but there is no response (yet)