Nov 5, 2022, 02:16 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 4 Nov 2022, at 13:17, Marc_marc <marc_m...@mailo.com> 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 different from wikipedia authors, because > they are recording observations, first hand study, while wikipedia work means > working with sources. Original research is explicitly frowned upon in > wikipedia while it is at the basis of mapping. We do not have relevance > criteria as a hurdle for inclusion of things, we only require them to exist. > I do not say relevance does not exist, but it is less important for our > mapping. We are creating “categories” of things by applying tags, and I do > not believe it would be helpful to have different main categories for the > same thing, depending on its historic relevance, hence I do not believe > redefining the “historic” key in this direction would be helpful for the > project. > Also, Wikipedia has long and bitter discussions about whether specific things are relevant or not.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
