<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 21 Oct 2021, at 18:33, Michael Straßer <Strasser_Michael@gmx.de> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="moz-cite-prefix">If you look at what is man_made then the maypole does not really
fit. <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"></p></div></div></blockquote><br><div><br></div><div>if we are discussing where they fit, then artwork is not a good classification IMHO. There may be some maypoles that are considered artwork, but generally these are much more about tradition and folklore than about art.</div><div><br></div><div>We should rather stick with man_made than change to artwork. Amenity could be an option as well, but they do not really provide anything that’s why man_made was chosen (historic also has been discussed, but they aren’t necessarily historic).</div><div><br></div><div>Changing a well established tag is very expensive, there must be really compelling reasons to make an attempt. There is nothing critical with maypoles being tagged with a man_made tag[1]</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers Martin </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>[1] (to be honest, the name “man_made” has been contested as a whole for gender reasons, this view hasn’t found a majority so far, but there may be a general issue with the key).</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>