[Tagging] Refining heritage tag

[António Madeira]

Hi, Martin.
Thank you for your input.



Às 06:38 de 17/04/2020, Martin Koppenhoefer escreveu:
> Am Fr., 17. Apr. 2020 um 04:27 Uhr schrieb António Madeira via Tagging
> <tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:tagging at openstreetmap.org>>:
>
>     After communicating with lutz from Historic.Place, he told me they
>     didn't create this heritage scheme, they just adopted it.
>     I took the opportunity to present him my proposal of refining this
>     scheme and I got his support to go ahead with it, so I'm
>     presenting it here in order to make the necessary adjustments with
>     a new proposal.
>
>     heritage=* - This is the main tag, which uses the admin_level [not
>     changed].
>
>
> currently 147558 instances
>
>
>     heritage:operator=xxx - This is the tag for the official operator.
>     I propose using separators [;] in those cases where an heritage
>     has an international and a national operator.
>
>
>
> currently 122076 instances, of which around 150 already have semicolon
> separated multivalues. There are not many multivalues, but I would see
> it as the already standard method (based on values of other tags), and
> believe it would be ok to add this to the wiki without further voting.
>
>     heritage:ref:xxx=* - This tag is for the code/number reference of
>     the operator(s) above. It changes the previous ref:xxx=*
>
>
>
> there are already some heritage:ref tags (and subtags like
> heritage:ref:vie)
> name 12188 heritage:ref, and 500+ heritage:ref:xxx
> It would be more complicated to count "ref:xxx" combined with heritage.
> I am more reluctant to welcome this idea. What would be the benefit?
> Generally, standard tags (like "ref" and derived tags like ref:mhd)
> would seem the usual way, no? We do not add highway:ref=* tags for
> example, because the tags refer to the object they are put on.
> Prefixing them with "heritage" would only invite people to mix up
> objects of different nature into the same OSM object.
>

The benefit would be exactly that, to be able to count references which
we know for certain that are related to the heritage scheme.
I know there are many ref tags that don't follow this procedure, but if
this is useful why not starting to adopt it for some schemes like this one?
It would turn the entire scheme more tight and organized, with a more
logical structured "tree".
Anyway, this will obviously have some resistance, but I think it is well
worth to debate about it.


>
>     heritage:xxx:criteria=* - This tag is for the classification
>     criteria used by the xxx operator. It changes the previous
>     xxx:criteria=*
>     heritage:xxx:inscription_date=* - This tag is used for the date
>     the heritage was officially registered by xxx operator. It changes
>     the previous xxx:inscription_date=*
>
>
>
> same comment as above for ref.
>
>
>     heritage:xxx:designation_title=* - This tag is used for the
>     heritage title (international or national). This is new and is an
>     attempt to circumvent the use of protection_title=* which is wrong
>     in this context.
>
>
>
> why is protection title "wrong"?

As discussed in this thread before, the protection title tag was created
for natural areas. Unless an heritage site coincides with a natural
protected area, it's not correct to use that tag. Unless we extend its
scope for this scheme.



>     heritage:xxx:website=* - Used for the heritage official website 
>     (international or national).
>
>
>
> same comment as above for ref. I would even suggest to use a plain
> "website" rather than an xxx:website, as long as there is only one
> operator (very common situation).
> Current use is 15772 heritage:website and 11258 website, plus 949
> heritage:website:sipa (looks like an import), 713 contact:website, 225
> heritage:website:arqueologia and 39 heritage:operator:website (IMHO to
> deprecate, we're not a general web directory)
>
> In general, let's use standard tags as long as there aren't good
> reasons for creating specific derivative tags.

I agree with your observations here, but we need to consider that the
website of the building (or whatever) has its own website, and the
official operator has its proper webpage related to the heritage
classification. This is very frequent and it would be important to
differentiate between the normal website and the operator's website.


Regards,
António.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200417/20e17a8a/attachment.htm>