[Tagging] Draft proposal for historic cemetery

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 00:26, Daniel Capilla <dcapillae at gmail.com> wrote:

A more specific value refers to clearly indicating in the tagging
> "historic" (as clearly as possible, and preferably with a well documented
> value on the wiki) which feature is considered as historic.
>

To my mind, historic=* should never have been a primary key, only an
attribute.  Whenever somebody proposes a new value using
historic as a primary key, what happens if somebody creates a
modern reproduction or replacement?  Then we either have to
tag something as historic that is not historic, ir we find another
primary key to use for the non-historic version and end up with
two keys for the same type of object.

Example.  A recent proposal was for historic=threshing_floor.
They're old and they're no longer used.  But historic doesn't
mean "old" it means a noteworthy past event or noteworthy
old object. If you want to specify something is old, use starting_date.
Historic doesn't mean disused, either, that's why we have
the disused attribute and namespace.  What happens if
somebody wants to revert to the old way of farming
and creates a new threshing floor that is used.  Even
if you insist that historic applies to the other threshing
floors because they're old and/or disused, it doesn't
apply to this one.  So then we have historic=threshing_floor
and man_made=threshing_floor for the same type of
object.

historc=* should be an attribute, not a primary key.
We have not consistently used it that way in the past
but that is no reason to add to the problem.

Introducing two keys for the same type of object is not
sensible.  I can guarantee that editors will only present
one of them whereas they could probably be persuaded
to offer historic as an attribute for cemeteries.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210211/48b7bfe8/attachment.htm>