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 languages, I'm just saying.
Anyway, I've been thinking about criteria for the historic key, and I
think it would go somewhat similar to the relevancy requirements on
Wikipedia (not that I always agree with those):
The feature should be of local, regional, national or international
relevance from a historic viewpoint, proven by them
* having a plaque on them about the specific feature or a plaque
showing they're heritage (see images below)
* being part of a heritage trail
* being on some sort of locally produced heritage map on paper/ online
or on tourism=information
* being on a local, national or international heritage register
* having something scholarly published about them
* being part of a larger group of features which have been
acknowledged as being historic without this specific one being
written about (church, creamery, smithy, school); this often applies
to disused or re-used amenity buildings
* primary source for historic research (graveyards, memorials)
* (having a wikidata item. But things might be more likely to be on
OSM than having a wikidata item. Maybe wikipedia page is easier)
I'm personally not happy about the wayside crosses and shrines being
part of the historic group, but I have no alternative idea.
It also needs to be made clear that the values following the historic
key need to be in English and not be the proper name or description of
the feature. I've been doing a lot of work translating many of the
values and subsequently re-tagging in the last couple of weeks.
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
IMHO.
File:Fógra (notice), Tory Island - geograph.org.uk - 2492988.jpg
Notice on national monument in Ireland
https://emailschildershop.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Denkmalschilder-Denkmalschutz.jpg
Sign (also available as metal plaques) in Germany for national monuments
Anne
On 04/11/2022 07:17, Warin wrote:
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 all the purpose of the wiki is to describe the tagging as is,
not as it should be an ideal tagging system.
Disagree.
Pedantic hat on: This way we end up with colour=black for the colour
white. And colour=clam for some aesthetic judgement of the colour.
We voting on the key/tag, as proposed not the past use (misuse) of the
key.
If people want to tag 'old' things with the key 'old' .. I would
rather they use the tag start_date=* as that would have more information.
A 30 year old may think something 50 years 'old' is 'old', an 80 year
'old' probably would not think that is 'old'. Some will conclude that
"old' is too subjective to tag within OSM ...
Future example: cloths lines.
There are 4 possible key values - two of them exist in OSM ... one of
them I 'like' because I have been using it since childhood. That does
not mean that any of the 4 values is 'wrong' .. the question should be
what makes the most sense for most people, failing that what is
easiest to meaningfully translate into other languages (note the
trailing s!). Still thinking about that.
Using a tag for things other than the common meaning of that word (or
word group) is simply confusing and should be avoided.
On Thu, 3 Nov 2022, 14:05 Brian M. Sperlongano,
<zelonew...@gmail.com> wrote:
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 debate unaddressed.
On Thu, Nov 3, 2022, 8:56 AM Anne-Karoline Distel
<annekadis...@web.de> wrote:
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
the voting
> time. Some issues are not cleared resolved.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Daniel Capilla
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> 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
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
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
