[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -mass rock
pla16021 at gmail.com
Fri Apr 2 12:20:31 UTC 2021
On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 12:45, Anne-Karoline Distel <annekadistel at web.de>
> What would be the alternative to the historic tag?
The same as all the former chapels I've mapped.
They once were used for that purpose but no longer are.
> They are clearly part of the Irish history/ heritage and the Heritage
> Council has some of them mapped for that reason (according to Wikipedia).
You may not know this, but I'm somewhat averse to historic=* being used
for things that are merely old and am of the opinion that it should only be
used when things are noteworthy. Even so, these scrape in under my
However, having historic=place_of_worship seems like a bad thing
to add to natural=rock (or any of the other things Mateusz pointed out
might occur) as any historic=* other than yes/no is treated by some
tools as a top-level tag, so we end up with two sorta top-level tags
on one object.
Also, historic=place_of_worship carries an implication that it still
is a place of worship. Such is the way in which historic=* has
been (ab)used. That's why a lifecycle prefix makes sense here
(and could be omitted on rocks that still are used to conduct
masses on anything other than contrived special occasions).
My first thoughts on this are natural=rock (or bare_rock or whatever) +
was:amenity=place_of_worship + historic=yes. I might be persuaded
to go along with was:amenity=mass_rock, maybe, if I'm in the right
mood, although my preference would be for some type of subtag if
you really want to be able to search easily for the things.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging