[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -mass rock

Anne-Karoline Distel annekadistel at web.de
Sat Apr 3 09:41:14 UTC 2021

I know the historic tag is very controversial and unfortunately, this is
the area I have proposed and will in future propose tags.

I agree that it has been "abused" for features that barely have historic
relevance, however I believe that in the case of mass rocks which served
as places of worship for 200 (TWO HUNDRED) years because Catholics were
oppressed and every time they went to mass, they did so fearing for
their lives, mass rocks are an element that is indicative for that
period in time and thus have historic value. (I'm not sure I'm using all
the right words here, but I hope you get my drift.) Memorials being
found near them is a modern day indicator of the historic value being
attributed to the place. (And the memorial is much less historic than
the location itself.) However, in such remote areas, memorials being
erected is very much dependent on an active community interested in
their heritage, i.e. local history group or priest interested in
history. Adding a note to the map would be much cheaper and easier to
organise. ;-)

Fortunately, I haven't found any reference to a massacre near a mass
rock, but from what I read in the school collection (linked on proposal
page), that possibility was very much present at the time.

On 03/04/2021 00:42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

More information about the Tagging mailing list