[Tagging] Refining heritage tag

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Con:

1) "hertiage:ref:operator" is 9 characters longer. This uses an
insignificant amount of disk space and bandwidth, but it does take an
extra second to type when mappers are entering tags manually.

The only advantage would be if there is a different "ref:operator" for
the "hertiage" designation, versus some other characteristic of the
feature. Is there any real-world case where this would be true?

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On 4/21/20, António Madeira <antoniomadeira at gmx.com> wrote:
> So, I would like to know what would be the technical pros and cons
> regarding heritage:ref:operator=* vs ref:operator=* , i.e. the database
> use, rendering, consulting, exporting etc.
>
>
> Às 21:04 de 17/04/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:
>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 at 00:43, Martin Koppenhoefer
>> <dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     I still don’t see why we would need a new tag heritage_title
>>     rather than the established protection_title##
>>
>>
>> From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:protection_title
>>
>>     Requires
>>         boundary=national_park
>>         boundary=protected_area
>>
>> So not applicable to heritage=*.
>>
>> Admittedly, the wiki page for protected_area states that it can be used
>> on heritage sites, but when you read through the rest of the page it's
>> not talking about buildings.  Or even a castle complex. It's talking
>> about
>> things like "registered historic landscapes" (a UK term), which are
>> historic and therefor e have heritage value, but aren't covered by the
>> existing heritage=* key.  Instead they're covered by
>> boundary=protected_area (I think).
>>
>> The heritage=* and boundary=protected_area are pretty much orthogonal
>> in what they cover.  There might be cases where both tags apply but they
>> are going to be exceptions rather than the rule.
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>>
>
>