Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
2011/5/2 Pieren : > To stop a beginning of edit war > (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:historic&action=history), > I would like try something new and ask your feedback about the tag > history=event wiki page. > > This tag is the result of a former discussion about immaterial historical > "significant" events on this ML > (http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/What-to-map-a-site-of-historical-significants-td6300403.html). > > Since every one is allowed to add almost every thing in the database (as > soon as it is verifiable), the question is not to "vote or approve a tag" > (since the definition is quite clear) but only if this tag can be referenced > in the "Map Features" (remember the wiki page that defines itself as > "agreeing to a recommended set of features"). If a majority does not like > it, the wiki page remains but it is not referenced in the "Map Features" > (helping those who are searching about historic events or finds the tag in > the db). > To participate, it's here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Devent Thank you Pieren. I would use "event:date" instead of "date". To make it more useful there should IMHO also be a list of suggested event-types (like the suggested robbery) (I'd simply start with a few suggestions from the thread and add everything else that might be needed at the time it is used). To reduce the danger of edit wars: what about _not_ defining the events explicitly "significant" (most of German Wikipedia disputes are about "relevance criteria" and I'd rather avoid similar discussions in OSM if possible). Of course we all expect only "significant" events to be mapped, but requiring it explicitly will encourage others to delete stuff and say: but it was not significant (enough). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
On 3 May 2011 02:02, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > To reduce the danger of edit wars: what about _not_ defining the > events explicitly "significant" (most of German Wikipedia disputes are > about "relevance criteria" and I'd rather avoid similar discussions in > OSM if possible). Of course we all expect only "significant" events to > be mapped, but requiring it explicitly will encourage others to delete > stuff and say: but it was not significant (enough). historic=battlefield is being lumped in with this vote as both are non-physical in the long term and so some people think both shouldn't be in OSM. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
After digging further into this, and with all XAPI servers seemingly unresponsive I looked toward tagwatch, the following are historic values of curious note: yes (5053) pa (2138) battlefield (331) Altstraße (80) heritage (76) tumulus (60) industrial (54) coat_of_arms (54) hollow_way (41) road (37) quarry (36) lavoir (33) UNESCO_world_heritage (33) re (32) railway_station (31) Personally I think historic=yes isn't a good idea, since you have to do further digging to be able to classify things, where as stipulating why it's historic is of much better value. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 5:59 AM, John Smith wrote: > Personally I think historic=yes isn't a good idea, since you have to > do further digging to be able to classify things, where as stipulating > why it's historic is of much better value. > > "historic=event" needs also further digging... Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
I think it is what it is, adding a subtag such as robbery or battlefield etc but I already documented this on the wiki On 5/3/11, Pieren wrote: > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 5:59 AM, John Smith wrote: > >> Personally I think historic=yes isn't a good idea, since you have to >> do further digging to be able to classify things, where as stipulating >> why it's historic is of much better value. >> >> > "historic=event" needs also further digging... > > Pieren > -- Sent from my mobile device ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
Even if historic=event is removed from the wiki, and even if historic=battlefield is removed I doubt it will stop people mapping these locations, they are important to people, and people have already shown that there are physical places that can be mapped. In fact the only thing that will be accomplished by removing references on the wiki is people will use multiple key/value pairs for the same type of object because they can't see any other values that are already documented. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
2011/5/5 John Smith : > Even if historic=event is removed from the wiki, and even if > historic=battlefield is removed I doubt it will stop people mapping > these locations, they are important to people, and people have already > shown that there are physical places that can be mapped. Yes, they already do use it: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/historic%3Aevent#values cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
On 6 May 2011 00:50, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2011/5/5 John Smith : >> Even if historic=event is removed from the wiki, and even if >> historic=battlefield is removed I doubt it will stop people mapping >> these locations, they are important to people, and people have already >> shown that there are physical places that can be mapped. > > > Yes, they already do use it: > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/historic%3Aevent#values No, I meant more like historic=pa I have no idea what it means, but there is 2100 uses... http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/historic#values So if I were to tag the same thing unknowingly, I wouldn't use that key pair to tag it... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:30 PM, John Smith wrote: > In fact the only thing that will be accomplished by removing > references on the wiki is people will use multiple key/value pairs for > the same type of object because they can't see any other values that are > already documented. > > Between the two extremes, completely removing or putting the controversed tag 'event' prominent in the Map Features (where the feedback shows that the tag is far away from a consensus), I tried something new with this intermediate solution where the 'event' page remains in the wiki, is referenced by the 'Key:historic' page and also in one entry 'historic:other values' in the template used by Map Features. Thus if someone is searching the tag in the wiki, he will find it. But he will also notice that it is not considered as a "map feature". This is a lot of efforts to find a compromise to satisfy everyone. You will find anyway in the database much much more undocumented tags than documented tags. So keep the Map Features page for what it has been created. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
On 6 May 2011 00:59, Pieren wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:30 PM, John Smith > wrote: >> >> In fact the only thing that will be accomplished by removing >> references on the wiki is people will use multiple key/value pairs for >> the same type of object because they can't see any other values that are >> already documented. >> > > Between the two extremes, completely removing or putting the controversed > tag 'event' prominent in the Map Features (where the feedback shows that the > tag is far away from a consensus), I tried something new with this So far one person has gamed the vote, hardly convincing, especially since they wish to do away with historic=battlefield as well, of which there is 317 tagged objects, and based on a quick glance a large variety of people using that tag in the 3-4 years of it being approved. > considered as a "map feature". This is a lot of efforts to find a compromise > to satisfy everyone. Already some think what can be mapped should be limited and enforced on the wiki, but it won't limit anything, it will just make a mess of things in terms of the same type of object being tagged in many different ways. > You will find anyway in the database much much more undocumented tags than > documented tags. So keep the Map Features page for what it has been created. So that is a reason to remove documented features that would be useful for others wanting to tag the same thing? Already someone else has used it as well. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:54 PM, John Smith wrote: >> Yes, they already do use it: >> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/historic%3Aevent#values > > No, I meant more like historic=pa > > I have no idea what it means, but there is 2100 uses... > > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/historic#values > > So if I were to tag the same thing unknowingly, I wouldn't use that > key pair to tag it... Unless you are in New Zealand, you're unlikely to tag the same thing: It's being used for a Maori fortress, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81_%28M%C4%81ori%29 -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
On 6 May 2011 01:09, Andre Engels wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:54 PM, John Smith wrote: > >>> Yes, they already do use it: >>> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/historic%3Aevent#values >> >> No, I meant more like historic=pa >> >> I have no idea what it means, but there is 2100 uses... >> >> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/historic#values >> >> So if I were to tag the same thing unknowingly, I wouldn't use that >> key pair to tag it... > > Unless you are in New Zealand, you're unlikely to tag the same thing: > It's being used for a Maori fortress, see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81_%28M%C4%81ori%29 That seems too specific, it should be a subset of historic=fort, and even then how many of these still actually have some kind of physical presence, which is the argument against tagging historically significant events. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
2011/5/5 John Smith > On 6 May 2011 01:09, Andre Engels wrote: > > Unless you are in New Zealand, you're unlikely to tag the same thing: > > It's being used for a Maori fortress, see > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81_%28M%C4%81ori%29 > > That seems too specific, it should be a subset of historic=fort, and > even then how many of these still actually have some kind of physical > presence, which is the argument against tagging historically > significant events. > Aren't we nitpicking? I've tagged remains of Roman cities whose "physical presence" is arguable, but nonetheless those are places of historical interest in that a Roman building or forum was there. I agree it'd be moot to map Troy based on the supposed position, but for well-documented POIs we shouldn't be discussing whether a fort is still a fort. After all, most European castles aren't actually used as castles anymore. Regards, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
On 6 May 2011 01:34, Simone Saviolo wrote: > 2011/5/5 John Smith >> >> On 6 May 2011 01:09, Andre Engels wrote: >> > Unless you are in New Zealand, you're unlikely to tag the same thing: >> > It's being used for a Maori fortress, see >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81_%28M%C4%81ori%29 >> >> That seems too specific, it should be a subset of historic=fort, and >> even then how many of these still actually have some kind of physical >> presence, which is the argument against tagging historically >> significant events. > > Aren't we nitpicking? I've tagged remains of Roman cities whose "physical > presence" is arguable, but nonetheless those are places of historical > interest in that a Roman building or forum was there. I agree it'd be moot > to map Troy based on the supposed position, but for well-documented POIs we > shouldn't be discussing whether a fort is still a fort. After all, most > European castles aren't actually used as castles anymore. I was just pointing out the extent of the argument against historic=event, since many historically significant places won't exist any more, but that doesn't detract from their importance, and you summed up my argument about having a place to tag, I agree 100% that only places that are known specifically should be mapped. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
2011/5/5 Andre Engels : > Unless you are in New Zealand, you're unlikely to tag the same thing: > It's being used for a Maori fortress, see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81_%28M%C4%81ori%29 IMHO the tag is not very well chosen. Besides that I agree with John Smith (subtagging as a fortress) at least the tag could acknowledge that we use generally British terms for key identifiers and give a hint like historic=mi:pā instead of "pa" cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
2011/5/5 Simone Saviolo : > 2011/5/5 John Smith > Aren't we nitpicking? I've tagged remains of Roman cities whose "physical > presence" is arguable, but nonetheless those are places of historical > interest in that a Roman building or forum was there. Usually you will also find something on the ground, at least if you dig. Looking at the page for historic=event I can see that most people are arguing against historic=event and historic=battlefield because there is "nothing on the ground". At least for battlefields this is pure ignorance. In many cases you will find lots of evidence, e.g. in the WW I battlefields (the whole terrain is modified, even a hundred years after you can actually see remains of the trenches and craters of the grenades and bombs, not to speak about the dead bodies still unburied in the ground). btw.: Simone, don't forget to add historic:civilization=ancient_roman to the aforementioned ;-) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:26 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Usually you will also find something on the ground, at least if you > dig. Looking at the page for historic=event I can see that most people > are arguing against historic=event and historic=battlefield because > there is "nothing on the ground". > > Note that the OP is about historic=event, not battlefield. The edit war started because JohnSmith documented what you, Martin, suggested in a previous thread although that thread showed already a strong opposition about such tagging (first reply was "feels to me very much orthogonal to OSM", second was "set up different databases", etc). And then JohnSmith enforced this in Map Features and tells now to others 'please discuss instead of reverting'. I would say : "please open your eyes and stop ignoring the vast majority of the comments. You failed to convince others that it is a good idea. Use it if you like but don't say it is a Map Feature (remember the page that says at the beginning : "a recommended set of features")". Someone else is also trying to improve the general description about the key 'historic' in the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic) which is something more productive than this discussion. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
2011/5/5 Pieren : > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:26 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > Note that the OP is about historic=event, not battlefield. The edit war > started because JohnSmith documented what you, Martin, suggested in a > previous thread although that thread showed already a strong opposition > about such tagging yes, I do remember this. I did also notice that there was opposition. I do not expect myself to tag lots of events, but I might add some, e.g. there is a place in Rome which is said to be the locus where Julius Cesar was stabbed by Brutus. I find this interesting and I think that others do so as well. We should face the fact that "starting your own parallel database" is often not an appropriate answer, but of course every mapper also has a responsibility not to tag his first kiss in OSM (I found this recently, take it as a proof that mappers won't restrict themselves even if no adequate tag is suggested in the wiki: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/895372910 (the name translates "our first kiss", I am not sure, maybe there is something there called like this, I don't know the place, that's why I left it for the moment and contacted the creator) > And then JohnSmith > enforced this in Map Features and tells now to others 'please discuss > instead of reverting'. Yes, I agree that this was not nice from John Smith. While I do think documenting all tags in the wiki is a good thing, we don't have to put them all on mapfeatures as well. > Someone else is also trying to improve the general description about the key > 'historic' in the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic) > which is something more productive than this discussion. Thank you for pointing at this. Actually I prefer some discussion before main key descriptions go into heavy refactoring. I don't think that adding a novel to a feature definition is a good thing. Keep it short. There is diary pages for the novels (or you make an additional wiki page, and do not hijack a Key description but rather link it from there). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
On 6 May 2011 04:15, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > e.g. there is a place in Rome which is said to be the locus where > Julius Cesar was stabbed by Brutus. I find this interesting and I I hadn't thought about assassinations, but all it took was an assassination to kick start World War 1, yes there were other factors but the assassination was the final straw, I'd say this is pretty significant. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event
Out of boredom I tried to think up all the non-physical tags currently in wide spread use: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:historic%3Devent#Why_even_obscure_tags_should_be_documented_if_they_are_likely_to_be_mapped.21 I doubt the list is exhaustive, but these are obviously important to people, otherwise they wouldn't get tagged. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
