[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

[Alan Mackie]

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 17:03, Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
I'm sorry, I'm having trouble spotting it at that link, is it by the gate?

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d1e29ab8/attachment.htm>