[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -mass rock
matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Fri Apr 2 12:28:20 UTC 2021
I am 100% fine with tagging existing and visible remains/ruins
I can live with tagging barely visible remains or ones where
linking to tagged object is at best dubious
(such as mapping railway=abandoned where sole trace is
embankment/cutting or some other kind of earthworks).
I am not accepting mapping things of completely and utterly
gone, without any trace whatsoever - and without danger of
For example buildings and railway in place that is now open pit mine
I worry that this historic=place_of_worship (however tagged)
can be similar to mapping say
( http://lh3.ggpht.com/_U-jCFu6f-jI/Sjwj0NKiJYI/AAAAAAAAG8E/pQ6oHG8tm1E/s512/59.jpg )
- now gone without any trace.
Apr 2, 2021, 13:39 by annekadistel at web.de:
> What would be the alternative to the historic tag? They are clearly part of the Irish history/ heritage and the Heritage Council has some of them mapped for that reason (according to Wikipedia).
> Another Irish mapper had suggested historic:place_of_worship=mass_rock.
> On 02/04/2021 12:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>> it seems that it is not always natural=rock, and it could be also
>> natural=stone or part of natural=bare_rock
>> I am not fan of historic=place_of_worship as part of being suspicious
>> about tagging historic data
>> Apr 2, 2021, 12:20 by >> annekadistel at web.de>> :
>>> Hello group,
>>> to be able to map historically significant mass rocks in Ireland, I've
>>> started a proposal. They were places of worship for the 200 hundred
>>> years of the Penal Laws when practising Catholicism was illegal in Ireland.
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> _______________________________________________Tagging mailing list>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging