[Tagging] Draft proposal for historic cemetery

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 11. Feb. 2021 um 18:40 Uhr schrieb Daniel Capilla <
dcapillae at gmail.com>:

> The "Key:historic" page on the wiki sets out factors to be taken into
> account in order to consider something as historic in terms of OSM [1].
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic
>


I would like to point out that this is only due to a relatively recent and
undiscussed, unilateral amendment. Going by usage, the key "historic" in
OSM has not the meaning of "historic" in language. It is used for anything
loosely coupled to history, but also for all contemporary objects of the
"same" kind. Just have a look at the values:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic#values

1. memorial 20%, there is actually an inflationary use of memorials, every
politician who wants to make a statement sets up a memorial for some
unknown local people, at least half of them are not truly historic, if we
are honest to ourselves.

2. archaeological site, 10,5%, ok

3. wayside_cross 10,3% used for all kinds of wayside crosses, almost none
of them is "historic" in the sense of historic

4. ruins, 9.4% usually not historic, or it would be considered an
archaeological site by the mapper ;-)

6. wayside_shrine 6,6%, some of them are historic, but most are religious
street furniture without historic significance

how many of the 42076 charcoal piles do you think are of extraordinary
historic value?

IMHO we should fix the wiki for historic=*, currently it is not documenting
our tagging reality.

Cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210211/45a43e55/attachment.htm>