<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi</p>
<p>heritage:operator=Historic England;Cadw mult-value style is
certainly documented. However I have a personal preference for
single value tags, I think they are easier to work with. I also
have my doubts about ability of searchers and renderers working
effectively with multi-value tags, some may call that tagging for
the renderer - I prefer designing for use.</p>
<p>Any other thoughts on multi-value tags in this context or which
way to go?<br>
</p>
<p>Tony<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/08/2021 12:58, Edward Bainton
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGJTS220aakxccZ8fPZDF6uyx=wPpc8KjHW2tqak7akNcYmYjQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">> object Z - tagged with physical properties, it
is then a member in two relations, a relation A holding Historic
England refs and a relation B holding Cadw refs.
<div>Would having two heritage:operator tags, or using a
semicolon separator, be a problem? I can't see why it would
be, and we would then avoid adding a relation.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>eg,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>name=Chirk Viaduct</div>
<div>man_made=bridge</div>
<div>heritage:operator=Historic England;Cadw</div>
<div>ref:GB:he=12345</div>
<div>ref:GB:cadw=67890</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Or is the problem that the viaduct is in two jurisdictions
so needs dividing at the border? That would seem a bit too
hair (or bridge ;-) -splitting to me, as such cases must be
very rare.</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 12:23,
Tony Shield <<a href="mailto:tonyosm9@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">tonyosm9@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">
<div>
<p>I haven't forgotten this - work and some thought have
intervened.</p>
<p>The agreed basis is <br>
</p>
<p>heritage:operator=Historic England<br>
heritage:operator=Cadw<br>
heritage:operator=Historic Environment Scotland<br>
heritage:operator=Northern Ireland Environment Agency</p>
<p>ref:GB:he=12345<br>
ref:GB:hs=LB2345<br>
ref:GB:cadw=34567<br>
ref:GB:niea=55643</p>
<p>this also works for non statutory organisations eg CAMRA</p>
<p>heritage:operator=CAMRA</p>
<p>ref:GB:CAMRA=xyz<br>
</p>
<p>I think that in the case where an object is in two or
more lists e.g. Chirk Aqueduct then relations needs to be
used, my concept is</p>
<p>object Z - tagged with physical properties, it is then a
member in two relations, a relation A holding Historic
England refs and a relation B holding Cadw refs. This
relation method also works for example a pub in CAMRA and
Historic England</p>
<p>I'll start making the wiki changes in the next day or so
if there are no objections.<br>
</p>
<p>Tony<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 28/07/2021 13:55, SK53 wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Late to this as ever. I think Robert summarised all
the important things I wanted to say, so just a few
additions:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>* Use cases: I imagine the primary use cases will
be related to individual lists, so ensuring that they
are readily discoverable at the list level helps.</div>
<div>* Using an Operator tag as effectively part of the
primary key has problems in that it's easy to make
typos or to forget what the canonical form of the
operator name is in osm (check out Weatherspoons, for
instance).</div>
<div>* Other heritage lists. There are a considerable
number of perfectly valuable non-statutory heritage
lists. Off the top of my head those of Camra (Heritage
Pubs), 20th Century Society (active in achieving the
recent listing of Dunelm House), local civic
societies, <a
href="http://www.rhrp.org.uk/surveystatus.htm"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">railway
heritage groups</a>, and local authorities (which
may retain lists which will be considered for planning
purposes).</div>
<div>* List ownership changes, as mentioned. The
earliest mention of UK listed status I'm familiar with
is in volumes of the Pevsner series abbreviated as
MHLG, and even in the history of OSM we've seen
English Heritage transform to Heritage England, and
similar changes in many natural heritage bodies.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think including a country code in the key is
probably useful to provide context & avoid
potential collisions in use of initials.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jerry<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 at
12:08, Mark Goodge <<a
href="mailto:mark@good-stuff.co.uk" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">mark@good-stuff.co.uk</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"><br>
<br>
On 24/07/2021 00:15, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
wrote:<br>
> <br>
> There's also the potential for more than one
organisation to assign a<br>
> heritage reference number to the same object. In
addition to a<br>
> national body, there may be local or
international bodies that<br>
> catalogue heritage assets. It's also possible
that some assets that<br>
> lie near or across national boundaries will be
catalogued by more than<br>
> one national body.<br>
<br>
There certainly are cross-border structures that are
listed by more than <br>
one heritage authority. Chirk aqueduct and Chirk
viaduct, for example, <br>
are both listed by both Historic England and Cadw.<br>
<br>
<a
href="https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/listed-buildings-map?loc=18,52.9280178,-3.0621707"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/listed-buildings-map?loc=18,52.9280178,-3.0621707</a><br>
<br>
Mark<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-GB mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-GB mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>