[Tagging] Draft proposal for historic cemetery

[Daniel Capilla]

Hi.

This proposal does not invent anything new. It is just documenting a 
value for "historic" that is in use. It is just one value among many 
others that are used (battlefield, castle, citywalls, etc.), all of them 
well documented, some with less uses than "historic=cemetery".

I created the page for "historic=cemetery" on the wiki a few weeks ago. 
I was not planning to propose it at all. It collected how mappers were 
using the tag and documented it in the wiki. This is something that is 
sometimes done on the wiki with tags that are used, have a clear usage 
scheme, but are not documented. [1] [2]

I thought it would be a good idea to propose it to enrich it with the 
opinion of others. I think it is a very simple proposal, very very 
simple, with a well-defined use. Limited, but useful.

Regards,

Daniel

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like

[2] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Creating_a_page_describing_key_or_value


El 11/2/21 a las 18:24, Paul Allen escribió:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 00:26, Daniel Capilla <dcapillae at gmail.com 
> <mailto: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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210211/9781846d/attachment.htm>