[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

[Volker Schmidt]

My gard stone example  on a building corne
<https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/YNhbgcyBHpYAhqatX0CwSF>is also useful for
this part of the discussion. I know the place well and I know the local
amateur history expert, and we talked about this specific stone, and also
asked about its historic value.
It is anywhere between 100 and a couple of hundred years old. It is on a
building the walls of which may have many hundreds of years. So it's
historical and as it's the only guard stone in that part of the city, it's
most likely also historic, not because in itself it is historic, but it's a
historical marker, as we are not good at keeping historic buildings of
minor importance.  The next building down the road, (which BTW may well be
of Roman origin as it used to lead straight to the historic city center of
Roman Patavium) was a tavern with several hundred years of confirmed
history, but was torn down about ten years ago to make place for a new
private house. So my personal opinion is that it is historic, even though
most likely 99% of the locals have never noticed it.

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 15:15, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:56, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I am not saying that these stones should or not get a historic tag, but
>> surely it isn’t an argument that one of the OpenStreetMap based maps
>> highlights things based on a wildcard selection.
>>
>
> Not an argument, merely a piece of evidence to consider.
>
>
>> If this tag would pose a problem for their rendering I am sure they would
>> adjust the selection rules.
>>
>
> Or perhaps we should not force them to adjust their selection rules by
> abusing
> "historic" to mean "old."  We have start_date=* to specify that things are
> old.
>
>>
>> Regarding “historic means historic as in the battle of Waterloo or the
>> pyramids of Gizeh”, we have seen from previous discussion that this was a
>> minority opinion.
>>
>
> An explanation, by one person, of what the wiki page says and the
> distinction
> between "historic" and "historical."  Those do not mean the same thinhg,
> however much you wish them to.
>
> On the one hand we have the wiki page, the distinction between
> "historic" and "historical" and a map with the sole purpose of
> rendering historic, rather than historical, objects.  On the other
> hand we have people who insist that "historic" means "historical."
>
> Many people see historic as a keyword for objects that typically could be
>> seen as historic, but then includes any objects of the class, without
>> further  differentiating them by “historic value”.
>>
>
> Many people do not read the wiki page.  Many people do not understand
> the distinction between "historic" and "historical."
>
>>
>> We do not have different tags for truly historic wayside shrines or
>> crosses and others. How many charcoal piles do you expect to be of
>> exceptional historic value?
>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic#values
>>
>
> I would expect a handful, at most, not the tens of thousands that have been
> mapped.  Those SHOULD have been mapped with a lifecycle prefix.  But
> people who don't understand the difference between "historic" and
> "historical" and don't read the wiki misuse historic=* then document it.
>
>>
>> For guard stones I could imagine using the man_made key as well, but
>> historic would seem to work because most of these are giving testimony of
>> former times.
>>
>
> "Historic" does not mean "historical."  Those stones are historical but
> they are not historic.  If you want to emphasise that they are old,
> start_date=* is the way to go.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201208/d15831f9/attachment.htm>