[Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event

Pieren pieren3 at gmail.com
Thu May 5 17:51:57 BST 2011


On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:26 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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".
>
>
Note that the OP is about historic=event, not battlefield. The edit war
started because  JohnSmith documented what you, Martin, suggested in a
previous thread although that thread showed already a strong opposition
about such tagging (first reply was "feels to me very much orthogonal to
OSM", second was "set up different databases", etc). And then JohnSmith
enforced this in Map Features and tells now to others 'please discuss
instead of reverting'. I would say : "please open your eyes and stop
ignoring the vast majority of the comments. You failed to convince others
that it is a good idea. Use it if you like but don't say it is a Map Feature
(remember the page that says at the beginning : "a recommended set of
features")".
Someone else is also trying to improve the general description about the key
'historic' in the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic)
which is something more productive than this discussion.

Pieren
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20110505/9a6702f7/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list