[Tagging] Draft proposal for historic cemetery

[Diego Cruz]

Dear Paul Allen,

I'm sorry that you have analysed so thoroughly my previous e-mail, but it
was just a hypothesis. By mentioning 1850, etc. I wasn't meaning to propose
a concrete definition for the tag historic, it was just a mere example of
how it could be done, to prove that this is not as subjective as one may
think. You just need a list of conditions to make it verifiable. This is
not the place for that, since we are just talking about adding a new value
to this already existing tag (a value that is also existing in the
database).

You say that landuse=cemetery + historic=yes works for you, but it only
works to add an unknown historic value to a certain object, not to define
the reason why objects have a historic value. Adding a descriptive
attribute to the tag historic is not redundant, it is adding information
that wasn't there. It is a whole different category than a mere description
of the object as a cemetery. You may not like this kind of tagging, but
it's ubiquitous for a reason. For example, you can have an object tagged as
a tourism=museum and also add historic=palace, because it is historically
important as a palace, not as a museum.

Best regards



El jue, 11 feb 2021 a las 21:20, Daniel Capilla (<dcapillae at gmail.com>)
escribió:

> 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/20210211/42530300/attachment-0001.htm>