[Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

António Madeira antoniomadeira at gmx.com
Sun Nov 15 00:20:56 UTC 2020


Wiki created:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dthreshing_floor

Please comment and/or edit accordingly.


Às 17:53 de 12/11/2020, António Madeira via Tagging escreveu:
> Thank you, Joseph.
>
> If no one opposes, I'll do just that.
> Regards.
>
>
> Às 16:43 de 12/11/2020, Joseph Eisenberg escreveu:
>> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 13:56 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen
>>>         <pla16021 at gmail.com <mailto:pla16021 at gmail.com>>:
>>>
>>>             On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 09:09, Martin Koppenhoefer
>>>             <dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto: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 list
>>>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org  <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Tagging mailing list
>>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20201114/8f3c7866/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list