[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Fri Jun 26 10:50:29 UTC 2020


On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:25, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

This would imply "historic" is for things of exceptional historical value,
>

That's how I read it.


> it is not how I read the tag. Almost every man made structure that is
> "old", has endured the times and is still here, does have some importance
> as testimony of former times.
>

Now define "old."  The past began 1E-43 seconds ago.  How far back into
the past qualifies as "old" to you?  A year?  Ten years?  A hundred years?
A thousand years?  Or just a few seconds?


> Any archaeological site is "historic"
>

Most archaeological sites in the UK, of any significance, are
scheduled monuments giving them legal protection against modification.
They qualify for heritage=* by virtue of their protected status.

Other things are historic.  Not just old, but of cultural significance.  Not
necessarily tourism=attraction but things that are of interest to some
tourists by virtue of their history.

Most things are just old.  Even for very large values of "old."

A lot of the UK's sewer network is old.  Like a qanat, it channels water and
has vertical shafts.  Little of that network, except some of the very first
sewers in the UK, is of historical significance.

Historic is not a synonym for old.  Historic means noteworthy.  Worthy of
being part of recorded history.  Or, in the case of memorials, a record
of history.  The sort of thing you find mentioned in a guidebook because
it is associated with some significant event or personage.  The sort of
thing that gets an article by the local historical society because it is
more than just old.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200626/bf911d10/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list