As I mentioned on the community forum, the historic=* key is full of tags that should really need to be revisited, changed or redefined before they can be voted on. I strongly advise against approving all historic=* tags en masse.
Elaboration on the community forum: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/feature-proposal-rfc-historic/3910 Op di 11 okt. 2022 om 16:23 schreef Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com>: > On 11/10/2022 14:54, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: > > Obviously, I support this. It has its own preset scheme in the iD editor, > its own icons etc. > > The following are missing (of the top of my head, because I proposed them) > from the list and were approved already: > > creamery <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dcreamery> > > ogham stone > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dogham_stone> > Anne > > > I suspect that most editors' preset schemes aren't driven entirely by what > tags are "approved" and what aren't. iD has historically used previous > usage, so for example values suggested for the key "building" match > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/building#values . JOSM uses a > different list of curated values, but defaults to what the current mapper > has used most recently. > > For a new "historic" node, JOSM out of the box doesn't offer "creamery" or > "ogham_stone", and it wouldn't really make sense for it to do so, since > there are relatively few of either (even unmapped) around the world > compared to the other historical suggestions already on JOSM's list. > > Best Regards, > > Andy > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
