[Tagging] Architectural Monuments - ideas?

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Thu Feb 20 09:06:24 UTC 2014

2014-02-16 21:31 GMT+01:00 nounours77 <kuessemondtaeglich at gmail.com>:

> Hello,
> I'm currently importing a list of Architectural Monuments into OSM. The
> available information is the name, the architect, sometimes the
> construction period. But how should I tag it? I was thinking about three
> possibilities:
> 1) historic=architectural_monument: Some buildings are old, but most are
> recent buildings. And also the relevance seems to be sometimes not big
> enough to justify a historic tag.

yes, I wouldn't use this tag if you are after tagging a generic
"architectural monument".

> 2) tourism=attraction,  tourism=attraction:type=architectural_monument:
> Some buildings are from famous architects, and might be tourist
> attractions. But most might be more interesting to architectural interested
> than to normal tourists.

yes, might be exxagerated to add it to every interesting building, I know
from my own experience that not everybody is interested (or culturally
prepared) in seeing a lot of buildings.

> 3) building=architectural_monument:  This is my preferred choice. As it's
> the building itself which is a monument. But it conflicts with other
> possible uses of the building type. E.g. if building=school or
> building=station, it's very likely to be among the architectural_monuments

yes, would NOT use this, as "architectural monument" is not a building

My Idea is that you probably shouldn't tag something as "architectural
monument", as this is highly subjective and there is no absolute way of
telling something is a monument or not. Also this will vary according to
fashion. Adding attributes like the architect or the construction date will
already allow for basic filtering (getting maybe the more interesting
buildings), important buildings will also likely have an article in
wikipedia so adding this will also help identifying them. Every way of
tagging, which requires "voting" or "rating" of buildings in some way or
the other, is not suitable for OSM (is subjective, is an opinion and not a

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140220/37050cf4/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list