Thank you, Joseph. If no one opposes, I'll do just that. Regards.
Às 16:43 de 12/11/2020, Joseph Eisenberg escreveu:
Since the tag man_made=threshing_floor has already been used 7 times (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=threshing_floor#values) you can create a page to document this, however, you would also need to mention that historic=threshing_floor is much more common (actually landuse=threshing_floor is also equally common), and it would probably be fair to create a historic=threshing_floor wiki page too, in that case. If you want to suggest deprecating historic=threshing_floor and replacing it with man_made=threshing_floor, or otherwise changing existing common usage, you should make a proposal so that the community can discuss this. -- Joseph Eisenberg On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 2:53 PM António Madeira via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: So, given that most of those who commented this thread agreed that threshing_floor should be in the man_made scheme, should I add it to the wiki or create a Feature Proposal? Às 19:27 de 06/11/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 21:53, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com <mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote: Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 13:56 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com <mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>>: On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 09:09, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com <mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote: ... To me it doesn't make sense to draw a line, dividing the same objects having more or less historic value. If there is something to distinguish at all, my suggestion would be to add a qualifier to those objects of exceptional historical value (if this is verifiable). We have a way of tagging objects of exceptional historical value, it's historic=*. Objects of unexceptional historical value, or of no historical value do not get tagged with historic=*. That's because historic is not a synonym (in the real world or in tagging) for old, disused or repurposed. just that it is not what we are currently doing. That is not what some of us are currently doing. Others read the wiki page and tag accordingly. It occurs to me that some of the mis-tagging (as I see it) and some of the discussions here may revolve around semantics as interpreted by those who do not have English as a first language. There is a difference between "historical" and "historic." Historians are concerned with historical data. Old data (about populations, diseases or whatever) is historical data. The assassination of a minor archduke, which seemed unimportant at the time, quickly turned into a historic event. When somebody says that "historic" applies to everything that historians do, that is incorrect. What historians mostly do is look at historical data, some small fraction of which is also historic. See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/historic-historical/ for a better explanation. So historic=* really should only apply (as the wiki page states) to the important things of the past, not everything some random historian might happen to be looking into. So the question is, do we accept that because some mappers have misused the tag we should encourage that misuse or do we discourage it? -- Paul _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
