[Tagging] Draft proposal for historic cemetery

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

I was for this at first, but I think I've been swayed by Paul's arguments
here.  I think about it from a data consumer perspective.  I might want to
search for "all cemeteries" or "all historic things".  If historic
cemeteries are tagged with historic=yes, I can do both more easily.  If
historic=cemetery is added, then I have yet another way that I now need to
search for cemeteries, and it's unclear whether traditional cemetery
tagging should also be applied.

So I'd say this should probably not be proposed.  Document the existing
usage, but also document that this can also be tagged (cemetery) +
historic=yes.  It would also be useful to compare the relative tag count of
both approaches.

I do think it is useful generally to tag historical cemeteries.  In my
area, we have government signs for them and therefore it's easy to decide
whether a cemetery is historical or not.  The fact that other places do not
have a similar black and white distinction is not a good argument against
the idea that historical cemeteries should be mapped.  For such places,
local communities can come up with criteria that make sense.

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 3:20 PM Daniel Capilla <dcapillae at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/2/21 20:47, Paul Allen wrote:
> > Our tagging space is slowly degenerating from the white noise of entropy.
>
> I want a T-shirt with that on it! :D
>
> Joking aside, I understand what Paul is saying. However, this proposal
> does not try to solve a problem that goes beyond it.
>
> The mappers are using "historic=cemetery". It seems to me to be
> appropriate to indicate a cemetery of historic significance in
> accordance with the guidelines for the use of the"historic" key. The
> value is not confusing, its meaning is quite clear.
>
> If you think my proposal might cause confusion if it is approved (or
> even if it is proposed), I can withdraw it and just document the tag on
> the wiki as a tag in use but not formally proposed.
>
> In my opinion, this proposal is very simple, useful, and not
> problematic, but you have more experience than me. What do you suggest
> to me? I am open to suggestions. My initial intention was to clarify the
> issue, not to obscure it further.
>
> Question for the Tagging mailing list: Should I propose it or not?
>
> Regards,
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210211/2298c1c2/attachment-0001.htm>