<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<pre>On 05-Jan-18 10:46 PM, marc marc wrote:</pre>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:VI1P190MB03841CED4BA1E20B0B9A1490B71C0@VI1P190MB0384.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM">
<pre wrap="">Hello Warin,
I find unfair and surprising your last wiki change while the discussion
is still ongoing.
1) saying that historic: is one in the category "Repurpose" is amazing.
let's take for example the example found of the wiki page of the first
key you put in this category
historic=archaeological_site
historical: civilization=ancient_roman
This does not mean that this site is now being reused for something else
such as a soccer field.
imho the historical namespace: simply means that we are talking about
the historical importance of an object. this has nothing to do with the
life cycle of an object but rather describes the context in which it was
created, like we do with start_date.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/229279903">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/229279903</a>
If you want to define the current usage of the castle,
the tag building:use=residential seems to me more appropriate than
claiming that historical: implies a different reuse today.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>1) And yet someone IS using that way!!!</pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<pre>On 04-Jan-18 07:17 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:</pre>
<pre>
</pre>
</div>
<pre>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALREZe9+wHUXo+Xf89OujYDMoMGouNLv-XTZstB6pP7eV8eASw@mail.gmail.com">
<pre>
</pre>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<pre>On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Warin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com" target="_blank">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:</pre>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<pre>
</pre>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<pre><span class=""></span></pre>
<pre>
historic: used for things that are historic. Being historic does
not imply the state of repair, use or where they are in their life
cycle. </pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<pre>
</pre>
</div>
</div>
<pre>For want of anything better, I've used this to tag things that have been</pre>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<pre>repurposed; for instance, a private home that was once a schoolhouse,</pre>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<pre>still bears the school's name on the lintel, looks for all the world like</pre>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<pre>an old schoolhouse, but is nevertheless a private home.</pre>
<pre>
</pre>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<pre>Repurposing is a part of the life cycle that the Wiki article does not</pre>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<pre>appear to contemplate.</pre>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre>
So I am simply documenting what someone has used it for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</pre>
<pre>
2) I have not put in any examples - just placed the birthing, decay and repurpose categories on the main page. </pre>
<pre>I hoped to bring some organisation to the page and simplify the understanding. If this has exposed misuse GOOD!</pre>
<pre>
As I have stated before, I am against using the tag historic within life categories.</pre>
<pre>
I would suggest this is a different topic, repurpose is not something I am using, but my thoughts are;</pre>
<pre>Repurpose</pre>
<pre>Where a feature has changed porupose. As an example a school changed to a hospital. There are 4 taggs in use; was: past: former: and some uses of historic:. </pre>
<pre>The 4 tags should be merged. Of these I prefer former, or failing that past. </pre>
<pre>Historic should not be used for anything other than things of significant historic importance and should be removed from available life cycle tags, left as a simple key historic=*. </pre>
<pre>Unfortunately these can only indicate one change. For instance a country mansion built as a home,
changed to a convalescent hospital during 'the war', back to a home after 'the war' and is now a museum. So 4 states of use. </pre>
<pre>I personally see this a a case of using OHM to tag the past rather than expanding OSM. </pre>
<pre>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:VI1P190MB03841CED4BA1E20B0B9A1490B71C0@VI1P190MB0384.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM">
<pre wrap="">
2) same problem with your classification of namespace was:
the tag does not mean that the location has been assigned to something else.
For example, if you notice that a restaurant has disappeared, you can
modify the object and put was: in front of the key.
this does not mean, however, that the place has been reassigned to
something else.
if so, the fact that it is reassigned will be given by another key, e.
g. amenity=bar
Therefore, I find that was: is simply a generic namespace that
encompasses demolished: and removed:
it just says that the previously valid object is no longer valid today,
without lingering unnecessarily if the fact that the object has been
demolished, removed or any other method depending on the object concerned.
demolished:building removed:building and was:building means exactly the
same thing to me. this key exist in the past but is out-of-date.
I think we would gain visibility by merging these 3 namespace into the
generic term was:
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>
I interpreted this way, you interpret it another way. </pre>
<pre>The word itself can be used either way. It is a poor tag. </pre>
<pre>And demonstrates the problems of just one tag that can be used in different ways. </pre>
<pre>There needs to be a clean up of these tags, </pre>
<pre>
Merging them into a simply unambiguous tags is needed. </pre>
</body>
</html>