<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><br><br><div dir="ltr">sent from a phone</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On 7. Dec 2020, at 22:56, Paul Allen <pla16021@gmail.com> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>And if none of that persuades you, the historic=* tag is treated specially</div><div>by the Historic Places map and is given special emphasis. It would</div><div>get very cluttered if these stones were classed as historic. </div></div></blockquote><br><div><br></div><div>I am not saying that these stones should or not get a historic tag, but surely it isn’t an argument that one of the OpenStreetMap based maps highlights things based on a wildcard selection. If this tag would pose a problem for their rendering I am sure they would adjust the selection rules.</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding “historic means historic as in the battle of Waterloo or the pyramids of Gizeh”, we have seen from previous discussion that this was a minority opinion. Many people see historic as a keyword for objects that typically could be seen as historic, but then includes any objects of the class, without further differentiating them by “historic value”.</div><div><br></div><div>We do not have different tags for truly historic wayside shrines or crosses and others. How many charcoal piles do you expect to be of exceptional historic value? <a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic#values">https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic#values</a></div><div><br></div><div>For guard stones I could imagine using the man_made key as well, but historic would seem to work because most of these are giving testimony of former times.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers Martin </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>