Martin's "reply to some unilaterally writing on the key:historic page..." and
"intended to say (something extraordinary) on one end and on the other end
(something vague)" sort of "nudge ahead" this dizzying proposal, but not by
much. I'm not complaining at the extra clarification.
But it
sent from a phone
> On 4 Dec 2022, at 11:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> only for features that are considered of historical significance.
intended to say, “of extraordinary historical significance” on the one end, and
the opposing direction is more like “generally somehow related to
sent from a phone
> On 4 Dec 2022, at 10:57, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> "This key can be used on every observable feature that has a historical
> meaning, regardless of ... interest to the OSM community."
I believe this is in reply to some unilaterally writing on the key:historic
page of
This proposal, its history, its present and its future I find extremely
confusing. It is enough for me to vote it down because it needs to be started
from scratch (the proposal itself, not the voting on what is now too confusing
a proposal). If we are re-voting, I'm not even sure I can find
Ah, I see now I put this in my vote on the 2nd voting round. -- I also
see that I asked there why abandoned railways were mentioned since I
thought they had their own key and wern't using "historic", is this an
intentional change? Is the re-tagging of abandoned railways proposed here?
On
Hi,
I could swear I had written this as a public message long ago but I
cannot find it now. Sorry, then, for the last-minute interruption. I had
an issue with the proposal, namely the wording:
"This key can be used on every observable feature that has a historical
meaning, regardless of ...
Nov 5, 2022, 02:16 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 4 Nov 2022, at 13:17, Marc_marc wrote:
>>
>> our "sister" project (wikipedia) has no problem defining what is an anecdote
>> and what is "relevance from a historic viewpoint",
>> I don't see why we should have any
Vào lúc 18:16 2022-11-04, Martin Koppenhoefer đã viết:
On 4 Nov 2022, at 13:17, Marc_marc wrote:
our "sister" project (wikipedia) has no problem defining what is an anecdote and what is
"relevance from a historic viewpoint",
I don't see why we should have any issue doing it.
Mappers are
I truly oversimplify as I say this, re-definitions of tags is problematic. It
results in a long-term destruction of OSM's own data. In short, you believe
your preconceived notions of "knowing better" or "knowing it all" (or something
like that) is better than "what OSM already says." Now, I
sent from a phone
> On 4 Nov 2022, at 13:17, Marc_marc wrote:
>
> our "sister" project (wikipedia) has no problem defining what is an anecdote
> and what is "relevance from a historic viewpoint",
> I don't see why we should have any issue doing it.
Mappers are working fundamentally
Vào lúc 09:36 2022-11-04, Anne-Karoline Distel đã viết:
The point I was trying to make is that in the iD editor, the field
"inscription" comes up as a default and is mis-used for descriptions. I
would like to see a way to prevent that.
Obviously, a signpost has an inscription, but that field
In case of systematic issues caused by iD mappers you can report problem at
https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema
Possible solution may be presenting also description field or better
describing inscription field
Nov 4, 2022, 17:36 by annekadis...@web.de:
>
> The point I was trying
The point I was trying to make is that in the iD editor, the field
"inscription" comes up as a default and is mis-used for descriptions. I
would like to see a way to prevent that.
Obviously, a signpost has an inscription, but that field maybe comes up
for signpost which I would presume is the
I would say the lighting is slightly outdated.
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 4 nov. 2022 om 17:06 heeft Brian M. Sperlongano het
> volgende geschreven:
>
>
> I'll offer a well-known example from my country:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Fabulous_Las_Vegas_sign
>
> It's on the US
I'll offer a well-known example from my country:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Fabulous_Las_Vegas_sign
It's on the US National Register of Historic Places which should qualify it
as a historic sign. Although I suppose those in Europe would just consider
the sign to be a little old.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Post_Historic_District
Nov 4, 2022, 16:38 by annekadis...@web.de:
>
> I wasn't aware bicycle parking and sign posts are considered historic
> now. :P
>
> On 04/11/2022 15:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nov 4, 2022, 12:59 by
I wasn't aware bicycle parking and sign posts are considered historic
now. :P
On 04/11/2022 15:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
Nov 4, 2022, 12:59 by annekadis...@web.de:
I also noticed that the inscription key is used a lot where it
should be description. I think that's the
Nov 4, 2022, 12:59 by annekadis...@web.de:
>
> I also noticed that the > inscription> key is used a lot where it should be
> > description> . I think that's the "fault" of the iD editor form for
> historic features. The > inscription> field only makes sense for
> memorials
Le 03.11.22 à 14:20, Volker Schmidt a écrit :
I think the best way out is to think detached from the meaning of the
strings of characters we use for tagging.
osm isn't wikidata.
it's perfect fine to use P123=Q1234 for wikidata.
osm use "human readable" string , that's allow
the "any key you
Le 04.11.22 à 09:35, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
the tag “historic” is about features that typically or frequently are historic,
it isn’t a tag to exclude those features of the same kind that aren’t.
exept the mess with tombs, most objet 'll never have this kind of issue.
so i don't
I agree in the observation that some people just tag anything old as
historic, even just shops that have closed (now, I don't know - maybe
those specific shops played a vital role in the community). And it might
also be due to language barriers, I don't know how the editors present
in other
sent from a phone
> On 4 Nov 2022, at 08:21, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Using a tag for things other than the common meaning of that word (or word
> group) is simply confusing and should be avoided.
I may be misguided, but from reading dictionaries it seems to me that the
On 4/11/22 00:20, Volker Schmidt wrote:
I think the best way out is to think detached from the meaning of the
strings of characters we use for tagging.
Let's document that we have have certain values for the key "historic"
that describe objects that are not historic, and not even old.
After
I don't know if people didn't get the message that I had to stop the
voting process, because I had to make a change to the proposal page, and
if they're not reading the headings on the page.
The opening of the voting booths is retracted and you can merrily
discuss away.
Martin can re-open the
sent from a phone
> On 3 Nov 2022, at 14:39, Sarah Hoffmann via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> Random example: historic=manor. About 77% of objects tagged with
> historic=manor have a building=* tag, which makes perfect sense. A manor
> is a building after all. So it looks like historic=manor is more
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 11:56:45AM +, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Martin is too busy the next couple of days, so with his permission I
> have opened the voting booths for the key historic to be approved. The
> minimum 2 weeks passed a couple of days ago, and the discussion
I think the best way out is to think detached from the meaning of the
strings of characters we use for tagging.
Let's document that we have have certain values for the key "historic" that
describe objects that are not historic, and not even old.
After all the purpose of the wiki is to describe the
The main issue I have with this proposal is that there is a longstanding
controversy regarding the historic key. Namely, the question of whether it
is used for things that are historic or merely old. I don't see how a
proposal centered around this key can move forward with that fundamental
Thanks for pointing that out, I've closed the vote again, and will open
again tomorrow. I don't know if that it the procedure when you correct
an oversight on the proposal page.
Anne
On 03/11/2022 12:16, Daniel Capilla wrote:
Please,
Check the wiki talk page of this proposal before opening
Please,
Check the wiki talk page of this proposal before opening the voting
time. Some issues are not cleared resolved.
Thank you.
Regards,
Daniel Capilla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Hello all,
Martin is too busy the next couple of days, so with his permission I
have opened the voting booths for the key historic to be approved. The
minimum 2 weeks passed a couple of days ago, and the discussion has died
down, so hopefully everyone is ready to vote.
31 matches
Mail list logo
