[Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 7 21:22:13 UTC 2020

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 21:54, Janko Mihelić <janjko at gmail.com> wrote:

> pon, 7. ruj 2020. u 22:15 Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> napisao je:
>> In that case it would not be historic, just a random anchor put there
>> because
>> it looks pretty.  Possibly tourism=artwork, but I'm not sure what would
>> be a suitable artwork_type.  It's not really an installation or a
>> sculpture.
>> It's really "found art" in the broader definition of the term.  Has/had
>> another purpose but has been appropriated as art.
> Why do you think it's different from a historic=cannon?

Because a cannon might not be historic, either, just a piece of found art.

To say that something is historic means that it is important or significant
in history.  An anchor or cannon which have nothing special about them and
are not commemorating something of historical significance are just

Yes, there will be overlaps.  There are always overlaps when we try
to categorize the real world.  Nevertheless, there's a big difference
between an anchor somebody bought at a scrapyard so he could
display it and the anchor that belonged to the famous ship
whatever, sunk in the battle of whatever.

The difference can usually be determined from an accompanying plaque
or sign.  If there is something about the provenance of the object, or
it says what the object commemorates, it's probably historic.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200907/7c9a9437/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list