<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Great! Thank you Brian. <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">El 11/2/21 a las 22:48, Brian M.
Sperlongano escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMrfQx3Ce4b9vgzwPPcprL2ioygpPD+hhCSajrGOvs0=V+C0Uw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">I was for this at first, but I think I've been
swayed by Paul's arguments here. I think about it from a data
consumer perspective. I might want to search for "all
cemeteries" or "all historic things". If historic cemeteries
are tagged with historic=yes, I can do both more easily. If
historic=cemetery is added, then I have yet another way that I
now need to search for cemeteries, and it's unclear whether
traditional cemetery tagging should also be applied.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So I'd say this should probably not be proposed. Document
the existing usage, but also document that this can also be
tagged (cemetery) + historic=yes. It would also be useful to
compare the relative tag count of both approaches.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I do think it is useful generally to tag historical
cemeteries. In my area, we have government signs for them and
therefore it's easy to decide whether a cemetery is historical
or not. The fact that other places do not have a similar
black and white distinction is not a good argument against the
idea that historical cemeteries should be mapped. For such
places, local communities can come up with criteria that make
sense. </div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 3:20
PM Daniel Capilla <<a href="mailto:dcapillae@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">dcapillae@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On
11/2/21 20:47, Paul Allen wrote:<br>
> Our tagging space is slowly degenerating from the white
noise of entropy.<br>
<br>
I want a T-shirt with that on it! :D<br>
<br>
Joking aside, I understand what Paul is saying. However, this
proposal <br>
does not try to solve a problem that goes beyond it.<br>
<br>
The mappers are using "historic=cemetery". It seems to me to
be <br>
appropriate to indicate a cemetery of historic significance in
<br>
accordance with the guidelines for the use of the"historic"
key. The <br>
value is not confusing, its meaning is quite clear.<br>
<br>
If you think my proposal might cause confusion if it is
approved (or <br>
even if it is proposed), I can withdraw it and just document
the tag on <br>
the wiki as a tag in use but not formally proposed.<br>
<br>
In my opinion, this proposal is very simple, useful, and not <br>
problematic, but you have more experience than me. What do you
suggest <br>
to me? I am open to suggestions. My initial intention was to
clarify the <br>
issue, not to obscure it further.<br>
<br>
Question for the Tagging mailing list: Should I propose it or
not?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Daniel<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>