bio2935c
 Joined: 15/12/06
Places: 1426
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0   |
I know that no one has been added to the moderator list yet (nor do I know when or who it will be) but I figure that [u:3rticvj8]this[/u:3rticvj8] topic is something that is of interest to everyone, moderator or not, and there is no reason to delay talking about it.
The object of this exercise is to get started with the category hierarchy - which categories are parents and which are children and grandchildren etc etc. I am not concerned about the synonyms right now, many of those are already in place anyway, and we probably won't want to change them.
In this hierarchy "tree" there will be some small number of "top level" categories. I suppose someone will argue that there should only be one top-level category, called [Place], but I think that is going too far. <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> So let's start with the level below [Place] and call those "top-level". In reality I do not expect any of these top-level categories to have any actual associated places/objects, they will serve only as titles for grouping those categories that fall below them. (At the moment I do not know if this could be technically enforced, but we can still try to make it like that.) Perhaps even the level below this will also be "headings only".
Once upon a time there were some implied top-level category headings. The categories used to be displayed in a different format then and the following words were used to group them:
Popular
- Government
- Dining and leisure
- Tourism
- Transportation
Shopping and services
- Health and care
- Sport
- Educational
I mention this list not because I think we should copy it (I think not), but [u:3rticvj8]only[/u:3rticvj8] as an example.
So here is your invitation to speak up about what you believe would be useful top-level categories. If you want to fill in some of their subcategories (which would help the rest of us who read this to understand better) then do that also. |
|
|
|
detgfrsh
 Joined: 08/07/09
Places: 2076
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
2 that I want to see:
Restaurant
-Subcategories will answer "what kind of restaurant is it?"
Production
-Subcategories answer "what is produced here?" |
|
|
|
bigtex
Joined: 27/09/10
Places: 1586
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
| It is 0222 local time now, will come back tomorrow with a functioning brain. However, the category "production" really gives me fits as it is far too broad and should therefore be one of those "close to the tree-top" categories. Can't wait (but will of course) for this project to get into gear. |
|
|
|
Jurgene
Joined: 23/05/10
Places: 64
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[b:3h11if67]About airports.[/b:3h11if67]
There is 'airbase' category. It should be renamed to 'military aerodrome'. There is also needed category 'civil airport'. Also based on 'aeroclub' or smth like that we should have 'sport aerodrome'.
So all the 3 categories should be children for 'airport':
[list:3h11if67]-airport
--civil airport;
--military aerodrome;
--sport aerodrome.[/list:u:3h11if67]
There are also combined usage airports. So we need appropriate category with parents 'civil airport' and 'military aerodrome'. Or we can just set both categories for aerodromes like these. |
|
|
|
Jurgene
Joined: 23/05/10
Places: 64
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[b:20zw4fbz]About air navigation.[/b:20zw4fbz]
Category 'radio beacon' should be parent for 'localizer', 'non-directional beacon', 'distanse measure equipment', 'VHF omni-directional radio range'. There is also should be category for glidepath beacon. So tree would be like that:
[list:20zw4fbz]-radio beacon
--non-directional beacon
--localizer
--glidepath
--'VHF omni-directional radio range
--distanse measure equipment[/list:u:20zw4fbz]
There are also 'navigation' and 'antenna' are used for places like these. Relation with 'radio beacon' to be discussed. |
|
|
|
desu
 Joined: 01/01/07
Places: 5521
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote:1m4i6tr2]There is 'airbase' category. It should be renamed to 'military aerodrome'.[/quote:1m4i6tr2]
Why? Airbase (or air base) is the simplest and most correct terminology when referring to such places. |
|
|
|
seafordian
 Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
| Yeah, we don't use "military aerodrome" here in the US, that would be confusing! air base or air force base (AFB) is more appropriate |
|
|
|
ZacharyKent
 Joined: 26/03/08
Places: 21202
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote="seafordian":t4nls8j9]Yeah, we don't use "military aerodrome" here in the US,[/quote:t4nls8j9]
Nor in the [u:t4nls8j9]United Kingdom[/u:t4nls8j9] too, as far as I know (although most certain of it) they are referred as 'air bases' or 'airbase'. |
|
|
|
Jurgene
Joined: 23/05/10
Places: 64
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote="seafordian":16dhtx56]Yeah, we don't use "military aerodrome" here in the US, that would be confusing! air base or air force base (AFB) is more appropriate[/quote:16dhtx56]
OK for US, but we're talking not about US, we're talking about [b:16dhtx56]the whole world[/b:16dhtx56]. US citizens should know, US is not the only country in the world. |
|
|
|
stcraftie59
 Joined: 11/02/07
Places: 4441
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote="Jurgene":17ayuipm][quote="seafordian":17ayuipm]Yeah, we don't use "military aerodrome" here in the US, that would be confusing! air base or air force base (AFB) is more appropriate[/quote:17ayuipm]
OK for US, but we're talking not about US, we're talking about [b:17ayuipm]the whole world[/b:17ayuipm]. US citizens should know, US is not the only country in the world.[/quote:17ayuipm]
Well, the Wiki is supposed to be primarily English. To me, that would call for popular English words, phrases, idioms, et cetera.
This is from Wikipedia:
The term airport may imply a certain stature (having satisfied certain certification criteria or regulatory requirements) that an aerodrome may not have achieved. [b:17ayuipm]That is to say, all airports are aerodromes, but not all aerodromes are airports.[/b:17ayuipm]
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodrome">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodrome<;!-- m --> |
|
|
|
bigtex
Joined: 27/09/10
Places: 1586
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
| Very good point, well made [b:in0uxnqm]Scott[/b:in0uxnqm] |
|
|
|
RK77
 Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
| We should strive for widely used names, not secondary alternatives. I think 'aerodrome' is more like a secondary alternative, IMO. |
|
|
|
antdoghalo
Joined: 02/11/08
Places: 139
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
I had an idea for this a while (months) ago
Recreation
.Recreational center
.Park
. national park
. state park
. provincial park
. local park |
|
|
|
desu
Joined: 01/01/07
Places: 5521
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote="Jurgene":eciban7b]OK for US, but we're talking not about US, we're talking about [b:eciban7b]the whole world[/b:eciban7b]. US citizens should know, US is not the only country in the world.[/quote:eciban7b]
And the vast majority of [b:eciban7b]the whole world[/b:eciban7b] uses air base/airbase for strictly military airfields. Seriously, look it up. The random sampling of European countries I looked at last night, plus Russia and India, call them airbases. Joint-use civilian-military fields tended to go with either airport or airfield. Jay was only [i:eciban7b]rightly[/i:eciban7b] pointing out that "aerodrome" is obsolete terminology in the US, and thus would be meaningless here. Aerodrome has not been used to describe airfields here since WWII. Airbase/air base, however, has more global applications, and by its very definition refers [i:eciban7b]only[/i:eciban7b] to military airfields. Don't reinvent the wheel, eh? |
|
|
|
AinarsM
Joined: 14/03/08
Places: 6601
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
If we talk about "airodromes/airports" group we should not forget about 'helipads' and 'drop zones'?
We know, this areas often are located far away from airfield zone, but anyway belong to scope.
And how about ground structures, will we include this under airports?
-taxiways
-aprons
-control towers
-passenger terminals
Some airports even have aircargo or cargo tranportations. |
|
|
|
seafordian
Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote="Jurgene":1dj9epl5][quote="seafordian":1dj9epl5]Yeah, we don't use "military aerodrome" here in the US, that would be confusing! air base or air force base (AFB) is more appropriate[/quote:1dj9epl5]
OK for US, but we're talking not about US, we're talking about [b:1dj9epl5]the whole world[/b:1dj9epl5]. US citizens should know, US is not the only country in the world.[/quote:1dj9epl5]
Ugh yeah but we are constantly subject to the unified categories that do not make sense...I mean, we put in high school we get "secondary education"...
An air base is an air base not a "drome" (Scott, where's the dictionary answer at???)! I mean, really, the country that invented air flight should get the final say <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) --> |
|
|
|
AndyVolykhov
 Joined: 07/11/07
Places: 619
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
Settlements:
- settlement
-- city
-- town
-- village
-- hamlet (?)
Buildings:
- residential buiding
-- house
-- apartment building
-- dormitory
-- barracks
- nonresidential buiding
-- office building
-- administrative building
-- industrial building
-- educational building
etc. |
|
|
|
xose
Joined: 24/03/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
I'd like to get back to what I think was the original intention of this thread to discuss the broad category hierachy - before we get down to the minutiae of whether it should be air base or aerodrome, apartment building or block of flats etc. etc. Whilst bio2935c 's initial list (which he wasn't advocating) is certainly brief, it reminds me of the last time (a while ago now) I assisted with this exercise on a commercial map project. There the hierarchy was divided at the very outset into 'Physical Geography' on the one hand and 'Human Environment' on the other, at the outset - or Tier 1 level. As I recall the following list were the principal Tier 2 categories under those headings :
[u:1x9ik2ca]Physical Geography[/u:1x9ik2ca]
Land
Water
Margin
[u:1x9ik2ca]Human Environment[/u:1x9ik2ca]
Administration/Government
Services
Utilities
Industry
Transport Infrastructure
Military
and it was then [b:1x9ik2ca]only[/b:1x9ik2ca] the Tier 2 Category "Services" which was then sub-divided at Tier 3, in a manner reflective of Bio's initial list, as follows :
[u:1x9ik2ca]Services[/u:1x9ik2ca]
Eating & Drinking
Entertainment
Retail/Shopping
Finance & Legal
Accommodation
Education
Worship
Health & Fitness
Sport
Like Bio I'm not of course saying we must/should do it this way, just that when done previously this is an example of a way it was done. |
|
|
|
Jurgene
Joined: 23/05/10
Places: 64
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote="stcraftie59":2pdocirv]
This is from Wikipedia:
The term airport may imply a certain stature (having satisfied certain certification criteria or regulatory requirements) that an aerodrome may not have achieved. [b:2pdocirv]That is to say, all airports are aerodromes, but not all aerodromes are airports.[/b:2pdocirv][/quote:2pdocirv]
Right, that's why we should separate civil [b:2pdocirv]aiports[/b:2pdocirv] and military [b:2pdocirv]aerodromes[/b:2pdocirv]. |
|
|
|
Jurgene
Joined: 23/05/10
Places: 64
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote="AinarsM":3c9uw5li]If we talk about "airodromes/airports" group we should not forget about 'helipads' and 'drop zones'?
We know, this areas often are located far away from airfield zone, but anyway belong to scope.[/quote:3c9uw5li]
Here before I [url=http://wikimapia.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=190287#p190287:3c9uw5li]told[/url:3c9uw5li] about aeroclub or dropzone like [i:3c9uw5li]sport aerodrome[/i:3c9uw5li]. And helipads are not airports.
[quote="AinarsM":3c9uw5li]And how about ground structures, will we include this under airports?
-taxiways
-aprons
-control towers
-passenger terminals
Some airports even have aircargo or cargo tranportations.[/quote:3c9uw5li]
NO, we shouldn't include them under 'airport' because taxiways, runways, aprons, control towers, terminals and radio beacons ARE NOT airports. They should be included under particular 'airport infrastucture' node which won't meet 'airport' node. |
|
|
|
antdoghalo
Joined: 02/11/08
Places: 139
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
Water features
.spring
. geyser
. hot spring
. cold spring
.running (we could replace them with linear object "rivers")
. river
. canal
.stationary
. pond
- . quarry pond
. lake
- . reservoir
.wetland
. marsh
. bog
. swamp
.seasonal (could be tan colored)
. mud flat
. salt flat |
|
|
|
Apriful
 Joined: 16/12/10
Places: 20
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
| Can anybody make category "quarry pond" child to "pond"? |
|
|
|
bio2935c
Joined: 15/12/06
Places: 1426
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
| Done. All the existing [quarry pond]s won't automatically get coloured blue in the map layer, however, but if you change something to [quarry pond] now it should do that. |
|
|
|
ZacharyKent
Joined: 26/03/08
Places: 21202
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
| How about the category of [url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5167&lon=-1.4667&z=10&l=0&m=b&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=1533&lng=0:coq5qz0d][u:coq5qz0d]take away / take out / carry out food[/u:coq5qz0d][/url:coq5qz0d] to be a child category of [url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5230626&lon=-1.4691639&z=14&l=0&m=b&tag=74&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=74&lng=0:coq5qz0d]restaurant[/url:coq5qz0d] ? |
|
|
|
seafordian
Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote="ZacharyKent":sfp2qymo]How about the category of [url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5167&lon=-1.4667&z=10&l=0&m=b&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=1533&lng=0:sfp2qymo][u:sfp2qymo]take away / take out / carry out food[/u:sfp2qymo][/url:sfp2qymo] to be a child category of [url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5230626&lon=-1.4691639&z=14&l=0&m=b&tag=74&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=74&lng=0:sfp2qymo]restaurant[/url:sfp2qymo] ?[/quote:sfp2qymo]
That's a tough one...not every restaurant allows "take out"...this wouldn't mean it is attached to every tag we put restaurant on would it? |
|
|
|
GeodesyMike
 Joined: 20/05/08
Places: 1104
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote="ZacharyKent":pi355geb]How about the category of [url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5167&lon=-1.4667&z=10&l=0&m=b&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=1533&lng=0:pi355geb][u:pi355geb]take away / take out / carry out food[/u:pi355geb][/url:pi355geb] to be a child category of [url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5230626&lon=-1.4691639&z=14&l=0&m=b&tag=74&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=74&lng=0:pi355geb]restaurant[/url:pi355geb] ?[/quote:pi355geb]
I know of many places which are take out only. I think of a restaurant as a place where I can go and eat. Some restaurants have take out, but not all take outs are restaurants.
(Now that I'm thinking about it I'm heading to Clayton's Mexican Take Out - awesome burritos, and just a 5 minute walk!) |
|
|
|
ZacharyKent
Joined: 26/03/08
Places: 21202
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote="GeodesyMike":2b9lslnz] (Now that I'm thinking about it I'm heading to Clayton's Mexican Take Out - awesome burritos, and just a 5 minute walk!)[/quote:2b9lslnz]
Yeah its [u:2b9lslnz][b:2b9lslnz]food for thought[/b:2b9lslnz][/u:2b9lslnz]. <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) -->
Even that's what I thought, that not all eating establishments would technically be classed as a restaurant. As some of them do not have facilities to eat inside.
For example this place.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/69/23/32_big.jpg">photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/00/69/23/32_big.jpg<;!-- m --> |
|
|
|
Teresa
 Joined: 16/10/06
Places: 10868
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
I think the category [butcher] should not be in the same family as shop, unless it is [butcher shop]. Butcher is someone who slaughters animal (or someone selling meat products), while butcher shop sells meat product.
I know in the West [butcher] often understood to be a shop selling meat products, and many tags' category reflect that. However, if I have to translate this word into Chinese, then it won't make any sense at all when reading at the tag describing a shop selling meat products, but seeing the category describing a person. |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote="Teresa":3n66p1o1]I think the category [butcher] should not be in the same family as shop, unless it is [butcher shop]. Butcher is someone who slaughters animal (or someone selling meat products), while butcher shop sells meat product.
I know in the West [butcher] often understood to be a shop selling meat products, and many tags' category reflect that. However, if I have to translate this word into Chinese, then it won't make any sense at all when reading at the tag describing a shop selling meat products, but seeing the category describing a person.[/quote:3n66p1o1]
This is another category which bothered me, I'm glad Teresa brought it up! I agree that the child category should be changed to [butcher shop] to differentiate it from slaughterhouse/abattoir connotations. |
|
|
|
ArnoutSteenhoek
Joined: 10/05/07
Places: 5091
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
>>[take away / take out / carry out food]<<
I guess there are more categories where you can eat, without any possibility to sit somewhere, like catering...
Maybe we could put a category above [restaurant], like [food], [cuisine] or [food / cuisine]? |
|
|
|
ArnoutSteenhoek
Joined: 10/05/07
Places: 5091
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
Can anyone tell us how we can change the category [butcher] into [butcher shop]?
([slaughterhouse / abattoir] was all ready existing) |
|
|
|
AndyVolykhov
Joined: 07/11/07
Places: 619
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote="Teresa":3vak1q9b]I think the category [butcher] should not be in the same family as shop, unless it is [butcher shop]. Butcher is someone who slaughters animal (or someone selling meat products), while butcher shop sells meat product.[/quote:3vak1q9b]
You are right, I removed this category from [store / shop ]. But there are a lot of butcher shops marked with this category, so this problem should be solved. Probably we really need new [butcher shop] category and recategorization. |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote="ArnoutSteenhoek":2xx5a9a2]Can anyone tell us how we can change the category [butcher] into [butcher shop]?
([slaughterhouse / abattoir] was all ready existing)[/quote:2xx5a9a2]
I think it can be changed from 'Category list' in the tool tab.
Yes the [slaughterhouse / abattoir] already exists, but some people might associate [butcher] to be a person who works there, instead of selling cut meat in a shop. That could be a foreseeable problem of having [butcher] as a [shop/store] child category, unless the name was more understandable.
Edit: Andy posted just before me! I like his proposal. I also favour having butchery/butcher shop as a child under [shop/store]. Whichever, is most suitable.
[quote="AndyVolykhov":2xx5a9a2]
You are right, I removed this category from [store / shop ]. But there are a lot of butcher shops marked with this category, so this problem should be solved. Probably we really need new [butcher shop] category and recategorization.[/quote:2xx5a9a2] |
|
|
|
ArnoutSteenhoek
Joined: 10/05/07
Places: 5091
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
| I guess 95% of all [butcher] is a [butcher shop], so changing the name of the category is sufficient, in order to bring it back again under [shop]? |
|
|
|
ArnoutSteenhoek
Joined: 10/05/07
Places: 5091
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
I will change the all ready existing category [metzgerei] (German for butcher shop) into [butcher shop], then we have all ready 35.
Maybe we could add a warning text behind the category [butcher] ? |
|
|
|
ferdok
 Joined: 13/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote="ArnoutSteenhoek":388t3yd7]I guess 95% of all [butcher] is a [butcher shop], so changing the name of the category is sufficient, in order to bring it back again under [shop]?[/quote:388t3yd7]
If so it will be reasonably to move objects (merge) from [butcher shop / butchery] (36) into [butcher] (1478) and rename [butcher] to [butcher shop / butchery] (previously rename [butcher shop / butchery] to [butcher shop temp] for collisions avoidance). |
|
|
|
ZacharyKent
Joined: 26/03/08
Places: 21202
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
How about the category of [url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5230626&lon=-1.4691639&z=14&l=0&m=b&tag=1107&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=1107&lng=0:2zixpjjd][u:2zixpjjd]historic[/u:2zixpjjd][/url:2zixpjjd] becomes the parent category and the following list becomes the child categories?
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5167&lon=-1.4667&z=10&l=0&m=b&tag=45662&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=45662&lng=0:2zixpjjd]historical building[/url:2zixpjjd]
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5230626&lon=-1.4691639&z=14&l=0&m=b&tag=45420&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=45420&lng=0:2zixpjjd]historic landmark[/url:2zixpjjd]
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5230626&lon=-1.4691639&z=14&l=0&m=b&tag=46214&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=46214&lng=0:2zixpjjd]Historic Location[/url:2zixpjjd]
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5230626&lon=-1.4691639&z=14&l=0&m=b&tag=46636&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=46636&lng=0:2zixpjjd]historic ruins[/url:2zixpjjd]
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5230626&lon=-1.4691639&z=14&l=0&m=b&tag=19183&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=19183&lng=0:2zixpjjd]historical marker[/url:2zixpjjd]
The other [i:2zixpjjd][u:2zixpjjd]historic[/u:2zixpjjd][/i:2zixpjjd] categories, I am not too sure about them at this time. Any opinions regarding the above? |
|
|
|
disco_
Joined: 01/02/09
Places: 19648
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
| What is your opinion about idea to merge categories [url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=42.55&lon=27.65&z=10&l=11&m=b&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=100&lng=0:3yoi1cog]memorial[/url:3yoi1cog] and [url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=42.55&lon=27.65&z=10&l=11&m=b&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=261&lng=0:3yoi1cog]monument[/url:3yoi1cog]? |
|
|
|
Teresa
Joined: 16/10/06
Places: 10868
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote="disco_":3v4098sk]What is your opinion about idea to merge categories [url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=42.55&lon=27.65&z=10&l=11&m=b&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=100&lng=0:3v4098sk]memorial[/url:3v4098sk] and [url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=42.55&lon=27.65&z=10&l=11&m=b&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=261&lng=0:3v4098sk]monument[/url:3v4098sk]?[/quote:3v4098sk]
My personal opinion is that memorial and monument are very different.
A memorial can be applied to statues, a fountain, a park, and even in some sort of monetary 'fund' to remember a certain person. While monument is often an architectural structure.
If this is applied to category hierarchy, what would you think the parent should be?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial<;!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument<;!-- m -->
Other users' opinion are welcomed for discussion. |
|
|
|
seafordian
Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
There's a clear distinction between memorial and monument...
Memorial is more for remembrance of something (death, tragedy, event) and tends to be more "somber" most often, whereas monument emphasizes achievement and celebrates somethings! |
|
|
|
bio2935c
Joined: 15/12/06
Places: 1426
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
I think of a monument and being "large and imposing". Like an obelisk, maybe; or the "Washington Monument", even.
Some monuments may also be memorials, but not all. |
|
|
|
ArnoutSteenhoek
Joined: 10/05/07
Places: 5091
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
All memorials are monuments, but the problem is that the meaning of monument is much wider and very fluid.
cultural heritage, monumental building, monumental nature/ landscape feature and of course statues and obelisks which sometimes can be called memorials, you name it...
Another problem is that in many languages there is 1 general translation for both... |
|
|
|
GeodesyMike
Joined: 20/05/08
Places: 1104
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote="ZacharyKent":1bhtnlcc]How about the category of [url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5230626&lon=-1.4691639&z=14&l=0&m=b&tag=1107&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=1107&lng=0:1bhtnlcc][u:1bhtnlcc]historic[/u:1bhtnlcc][/url:1bhtnlcc] becomes the parent category and the following list becomes the child categories?
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5167&lon=-1.4667&z=10&l=0&m=b&tag=45662&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=45662&lng=0:1bhtnlcc]historical building[/url:1bhtnlcc]
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5230626&lon=-1.4691639&z=14&l=0&m=b&tag=45420&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=45420&lng=0:1bhtnlcc]historic landmark[/url:1bhtnlcc]
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5230626&lon=-1.4691639&z=14&l=0&m=b&tag=46214&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=46214&lng=0:1bhtnlcc]Historic Location[/url:1bhtnlcc]
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5230626&lon=-1.4691639&z=14&l=0&m=b&tag=46636&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=46636&lng=0:1bhtnlcc]historic ruins[/url:1bhtnlcc]
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5230626&lon=-1.4691639&z=14&l=0&m=b&tag=19183&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=19183&lng=0:1bhtnlcc]historical marker[/url:1bhtnlcc]
The other [i:1bhtnlcc][u:1bhtnlcc]historic[/u:1bhtnlcc][/i:1bhtnlcc] categories, I am not too sure about them at this time. Any opinions regarding the above?[/quote:1bhtnlcc]
I'd add "historic district" to that list. |
|
|
|
ZacharyKent
Joined: 26/03/08
Places: 21202
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote="GeodesyMike":onuboirh]I'd add "historic district" to that list.[/quote:onuboirh]
Thanks for your suggestion GeodesyMike, I have added [u:onuboirh]historic district[/u:onuboirh] to this list. <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5230626&lon=-1.4691639&z=14&l=0&m=b&tag=46460&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=46460&lng=0:onuboirh]historic district[/url:onuboirh]
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5167&lon=-1.4667&z=10&l=0&m=b&tag=45662&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=45662&lng=0:onuboirh]historical building[/url:onuboirh]
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5230626&lon=-1.4691639&z=14&l=0&m=b&tag=45420&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=45420&lng=0:onuboirh]historic landmark[/url:onuboirh]
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5230626&lon=-1.4691639&z=14&l=0&m=b&tag=46214&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=46214&lng=0:onuboirh]Historic Location[/url:onuboirh]
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5230626&lon=-1.4691639&z=14&l=0&m=b&tag=46636&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=46636&lng=0:onuboirh]historic ruins[/url:onuboirh]
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5230626&lon=-1.4691639&z=14&l=0&m=b&tag=19183&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=19183&lng=0:onuboirh]historical marker[/url:onuboirh]
Any opinions about these [u:onuboirh]categories[/u:onuboirh] to have the [url=http://wikimapia.org/#lat=52.5230626&lon=-1.4691639&z=14&l=0&m=b&tag=1107&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=1107&lng=0:onuboirh]historic[/url:onuboirh] category as the parent? |
|
|
|
ArnoutSteenhoek
Joined: 10/05/07
Places: 5091
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
| [Historic] as a category doesn't make much sense IMHO. |
|
|
|
AndyVolykhov
Joined: 07/11/07
Places: 619
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote="ArnoutSteenhoek":3c3mz02f][Historic] as a category doesn't make much sense IMHO.[/quote:3c3mz02f]
+1 |
|
|
|
ZacharyKent
Joined: 26/03/08
Places: 21202
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote="ArnoutSteenhoek":32w0y45x][Historic] as a category doesn't make much sense IMHO.[/quote:32w0y45x]
Interesting point made, so should we [u:32w0y45x]get rid of it?[/u:32w0y45x] Or give it some use, like making it into a parent category? |
|
|
|
Horology
 Joined: 17/11/09
Places: 3829
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
One of the problems of making the term 'historic' a label for a group of things is that it has a possible second, distinct meaning in the context of Wikimapia
We have talked much in these Forums about the need for a HISTORIC LAYER on our map, where objects can be tagged thatwere formerly there but are not visible on the satelite imagery any more (like 'Former site of the XYZ Drive in cinema')
If we chose 'historic' as a group name for (still standing) historic building, historic monuments etc there will be confusion between
1 objects that belong in a historic layer because they are important to history
and
2 objects which are in the historic layer because they don't exist anymore |
|
|
|
ZacharyKent
Joined: 26/03/08
Places: 21202
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote="Horology":2xwaqh0w]One of the problems of making the term 'historic' a label for a group of things is that it has a possible second, distinct meaning in the context of Wikimapai.
We have talked much in these Forums about the need for a HISTORIC LAYER on our map, where objects can be tagged thatwere formerly there but are not visible on the satelite imagery any more (like 'Former site of the XYZ Drive in cinema')
If we chose 'historic' as a group name for (still standing) historic building, historic monuments etc there will be confusion between
1 objects that belong in a historic layer because they are important to history
and
2 objects which are in the historic layer because they don't exist anymore[/quote:2xwaqh0w]
This is one of the reasons why I did not include the category of [i:2xwaqh0w][u:2xwaqh0w]historical layer / disappeared object[/u:2xwaqh0w][/i:2xwaqh0w] in the proposed list. It would be a good idea if we treated the 'historical layer / disappeared object' category as a [u:2xwaqh0w]special category[/u:2xwaqh0w], along with the 'invisble', 'do not draw title' etc. I think it would also be a good idea if there was a 'special' category branch for these types of categories. |
|
|
|
ArnoutSteenhoek
Joined: 10/05/07
Places: 5091
Userlevel: -2 |
| 14 years ago |
0 |
[quote="Horology":1cns5j2e]
1 objects that belong in a historic layer because they are important to history
[/quote:1cns5j2e]
Apart from that
Historic could mean
1- of some age (which could be different from country to country)
2- Happening/ innovative building with historical meaning
3. very old
etc.
If it becomes a parent category we should rename it in [place with historical importance] |
|
|
