[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -mass rock

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri Apr 2 23:42:09 UTC 2021



sent from a phone

> On 3 Apr 2021, at 01:06, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Using this scheme, how does one distinguish between:
> 
> 1) A monastery built yesterday, in active use.


the amenity monastery tag is about the community, nothing has to be built (consider that the tag is also used e.g. for an hermitage). You can always tag buildings with the building tag


> 
> 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.


building tags, no amenity tag


> 
> 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.


historic=monastery 
btw., any former monastery is probably historic (of elevated historic significance, historic in the way you insist the historic tag should be used), regardless of their members have become victims of mass murder or not.


> 
> 4) As for item 3, but no longer in use (historic=* by your
> usage here, although disused:amenity or was:amenity
> would be clearer).


historic=monastery is not so much about the disused  or former amenity, it is more about a historic building complex.


> 
> 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.


examples?
if there is an active community, amenity=monastery can be added in any case


> 
> 6) As for item 5, but no longer in use.


examples? Anyway, it’s historic=monastery if the site is still there, otherwise it’s nothing 

Cheers Martin 


More information about the Tagging mailing list