[Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Thu Nov 12 19:43:51 UTC 2020

Since the tag man_made=threshing_floor has already been used 7 times (
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=threshing_floor#values) you can
create a page to document this, however, you would also need to mention
that historic=threshing_floor is much more common (actually
landuse=threshing_floor is also equally common), and it would probably be
fair to create a historic=threshing_floor wiki page too, in that case.

If you want to suggest deprecating historic=threshing_floor and replacing
it with man_made=threshing_floor, or otherwise changing existing common
usage, you should make a proposal so that the community can discuss this.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 2:53 PM António Madeira via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> So, given that most of those who commented this thread agreed that
> threshing_floor should be in the man_made scheme, should I add it to the
> wiki or create a Feature Proposal?
> Às 19:27 de 06/11/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 21:53, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 13:56 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com
>> >:
>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 09:09, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> To me it doesn't make sense to draw a line, dividing the same objects
>>>> having more or less historic value. If there is something to distinguish at
>>>> all, my suggestion would be to add a qualifier to those objects of
>>>> exceptional historical value (if this is verifiable).
>>> We have a way of tagging objects of exceptional historical value, it's
>>> historic=*.  Objects of unexceptional historical value, or of no
>>> historical
>>> value do not get tagged with historic=*.  That's because historic is
>>> not a synonym (in the real world or in tagging) for old, disused or
>>> repurposed.
>> just that it is not what we are currently doing.
>> That is not what some of us are currently doing.  Others read the wiki
> page
> and tag accordingly.
> It occurs to me that some of the mis-tagging (as I see it) and some of the
> discussions here may revolve around semantics as interpreted by
> those who do not have English as a first language.  There is a
> difference between "historical" and "historic."
> Historians are concerned with historical data.  Old data (about
> populations, diseases or whatever) is historical data.  The
> assassination of a minor archduke, which seemed unimportant
> at the time, quickly turned into a historic event.
> When somebody says that "historic" applies to everything that
> historians do, that is incorrect.  What historians mostly do is
> look at historical data, some small fraction of which is
> also historic.
> See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/historic-historical/
> for a better explanation.
> So historic=* really should only apply (as the wiki page states) to the
> important
> things of the past, not everything some random historian might happen
> to be looking into.
> So the question is, do we accept that because some mappers have misused
> the tag we should encourage that misuse or do we discourage it?
> --
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://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/20201112/14fabd4e/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list