<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Hi, Martin.<br>
Thank you for your input.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Às 06:38 de 17/04/2020, Martin
Koppenhoefer escreveu:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABPTjTAPUVzy3f=Wde+pKE9k1SOowM-XiVfty7L2vLF863N+BA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Fr., 17. Apr. 2020 um
04:27 Uhr schrieb António Madeira via Tagging <<a
href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> After communicating with lutz from Historic.Place, he
told me they didn't create this heritage scheme, they just
adopted it.<br>
I took the opportunity to present him my proposal of
refining this scheme and I got his support to go ahead
with it, so I'm presenting it here in order to make the
necessary adjustments with a new proposal.<br>
<br>
heritage=* - This is the main tag, which uses the
admin_level [not changed].<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>currently 147558 instances</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> heritage:operator=xxx - This is the tag for the
official operator. I propose using separators [;] in those
cases where an heritage has an international and a
national operator.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>currently 122076 instances, of which around 150 already
have semicolon separated multivalues. There are not many
multivalues, but I would see it as the already standard
method (based on values of other tags), and believe it would
be ok to add this to the wiki without further voting.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> heritage:ref:xxx=* - This tag is for the code/number
reference of the operator(s) above. It changes the
previous <tt dir="ltr" style="background:rgb(238,238,255)
none repeat scroll 0% 0%;font-size:1em;line-height:1.6">ref:xxx=*</tt></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>there are already some heritage:ref tags (and subtags
like heritage:ref:vie)</div>
<div>name 12188 heritage:ref, and 500+ heritage:ref:xxx</div>
<div>It would be more complicated to count "ref:xxx" combined
with heritage.</div>
<div>I am more reluctant to welcome this idea. What would be
the benefit? Generally, standard tags (like "ref" and
derived tags like ref:mhd) would seem the usual way, no? We
do not add highway:ref=* tags for example, because the tags
refer to the object they are put on. Prefixing them with
"heritage" would only invite people to mix up objects of
different nature into the same OSM object.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font color="#0000ff">The benefit would be exactly that, to be able
to count references which we know for certain that are related to
the heritage scheme.<br>
I know there are many ref tags that don't follow this procedure,
but if this is useful why not starting to adopt it for some
schemes like this one?<br>
It would turn the entire scheme more tight and organized, with a
more logical structured "tree".<br>
Anyway, this will obviously have some resistance, but I think it
is well worth to debate about it.</font><br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABPTjTAPUVzy3f=Wde+pKE9k1SOowM-XiVfty7L2vLF863N+BA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><br>
heritage:xxx:criteria=* - This tag is for the
classification criteria used by the xxx operator. It
changes the previous <tt dir="ltr"
style="background:rgb(238,238,255) none repeat scroll 0%
0%;font-size:1em;line-height:1.6"><span>xxx</span>:<span>criteria</span>=*</tt><br>
heritage:xxx:inscription_date=* - This tag is used for the
date the heritage was officially registered by xxx
operator. It changes the previous <tt dir="ltr"
style="background:rgb(238,238,255) none repeat scroll 0%
0%;font-size:1em;line-height:1.6"><span>xxx</span>:<span>inscription_date</span>=*</tt></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>same comment as above for ref.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><br>
heritage:xxx:designation_title=* - This tag is used for
the heritage title (international or national). This is
new and is an attempt to circumvent the use of <tt
dir="ltr" style="background:rgb(238,238,255) none repeat
scroll 0% 0%;font-size:1em;line-height:1.6">protection_title=*</tt>
which is wrong in this context. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>why is protection title "wrong"?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#0000ff"><br>
As discussed in this thread before, the protection title tag was
created for natural areas. Unless an heritage site coincides with
a natural protected area, it's not correct to use that tag. Unless
we extend its scope for this scheme.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABPTjTAPUVzy3f=Wde+pKE9k1SOowM-XiVfty7L2vLF863N+BA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> heritage:xxx:website=* - Used for the heritage
official website (international or national).<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>same comment as above for ref. I would even suggest to use
a plain "website" rather than an xxx:website, as long as there
is only one operator (very common situation). <br>
</div>
<div>Current use is 15772 heritage:website and 11258 website,
plus 949 heritage:website:sipa (looks like an import), 713
contact:website, 225 heritage:website:arqueologia and 39
heritage:operator:website (IMHO to deprecate, we're not a
general web directory)<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In general, let's use standard tags as long as there aren't
good reasons for creating specific derivative tags.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font color="#0000ff">I agree with your observations here, but we
need to consider that the website of the building (or whatever)
has its own website, and the official operator has its proper
webpage related to the heritage classification. This is very
frequent and it would be important to differentiate between the
normal website and the operator's website.</font><br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
António.<br>
</body>
</html>