[Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Thu May 5 17:26:29 BST 2011

2011/5/5 Simone Saviolo <simone.saviolo at gmail.com>:
> 2011/5/5 John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>
> Aren't we nitpicking? I've tagged remains of Roman cities whose "physical
> presence" is arguable, but nonetheless those are places of historical
> interest in that a Roman building or forum was there.

Usually you will also find something on the ground, at least if you
dig. Looking at the page for historic=event I can see that most people
are arguing against historic=event and historic=battlefield because
there is "nothing on the ground". At least for battlefields this is
pure ignorance. In many cases you will find lots of evidence, e.g. in
the WW I battlefields (the whole terrain is modified, even a hundred
years after you can actually see remains of the trenches and craters
of the grenades and bombs, not to speak about the dead bodies still
unburied in the ground).

btw.: Simone, don't forget to add historic:civilization=ancient_roman
to the aforementioned ;-)


More information about the Tagging mailing list