[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -mass rock
pla16021 at gmail.com
Fri Apr 2 23:03:29 UTC 2021
On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 23:42, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> > On 2 Apr 2021, at 14:25, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> it would be in line with historic=monastery for sites of former
> monasteries and opposed to amenity=monastery for an active community.
Using this scheme, how does one distinguish between:
1) A monastery built yesterday, in active use.
2) A monastery built yesterday but the organization that
commissioned it dissolved so it has never been used as
a monastery and probably never will be.
3) A monastery built 1,000 years ago (historic=* by some people's
definition) and where a massacre of the monks occurred 500
years ago (historic by the actual meaning of the word) and still
in active use.
4) As for item 3, but no longer in use (historic=* by your
usage here, although disused:amenity or was:amenity
would be clearer).
5) A monastery built 1,000 years ago (historic=* by
some people's definition) where nothing of note ever happened
(not historic by the actual meaning of the word) and still in active use.
6) As for item 5, but no longer in use.
Once again, we have historic meaning "old" (it doesn't) and "disused"
(it doesn't). Basically, some people keep using it as an alternative to
misc=* because they can't think of anything better, which leads us to
the confusion in this particular case where we cannot be sure what
is meant by it. If we keep this up we will eventually denature historic
to the point where it is meaningless because it applies to everything.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging