Talk:Tag:man made=geoglyph
Tags used in conjunction with geoglyph
There is no documentation for common tags used in conjunction with man_made=geoglyph yet.
Usage examples
Examples in Turkey: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JnI):
- text=*=(DSİ)
- note=*=DSİ = Devlet Su İşleri
- text:meaning:en=*=State Water Works
Examples in China: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JnJ
- text=*
- geoglyph:language=*=Tibetan
- description=*
- description:en=*
Any comments or other ideas? --katpatuka (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Representation of complex geoglyphs, and tools for editing them
Look at this geoglyph. I've represented it with a Multilinestring, but the iD-editor doesn't respect Multilinestring (or Site, for that matter), and so forces me to tag the individual lines (which I ended up making "man_made=yes"). Querying the place returns "Geoglyph #18699860", as I hoped, but also a bunch of useless, annoying "Man-made #wxyz".
The geoglyph is composed of Lines, and would be silly to turn into a Multipolygon. Is there a better solution? Shouldn't Multilinestring work for (non-highway) Line-types the way Multipolygon does for Area-types? Or maybe we could have a new Relation type=geoglyph?
And is there any way to quickly select the members of a relation in the iD-editor? (When a Way is selected, \[Ctrl + ↓\] will select its points, but it doesn't do anything for a Relation.) --Waterhen (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Being a josm user I don't know iD but maybe iD handles Relation:collection for such a thing differently. I've used it for an artwork named Sustenance. The lines are made of about a meter high block stones which I therefore tagged with barrier=wall. --katpatuka (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- But in my example, the lines are made of almost nothing - flat lines of sand, perhaps. I'd rather not tag them at all, like how Multipolygons may consist of untagged lines. Just now, I went back and tricked iD into accepting the untagged lines, by first adding tags and then removing them. So that problem is solved. A similar problem persists, though: What to do about simple lines that don't seem to belong to any glyph? The Nazca lines consist more of assorted lines than of actual glyphs. How should such lines be tagged? According to wikipedia, they consist of little more than tiny depressions in the ground. They aren't glyphs by themselves and makes it more difficult to find the real ones.