[Tagging] Draft proposal for historic cemetery

[Daniel Capilla]

Great! Thank you Martin.

Finally, I will not make a formal proposal. I will document the use of 
the tag considering this information and what has been previously 
discussed here.

I will probably have time this weekend to document it on the wiki. If 
anyone wants to document it beforehand, all collaboration is welcome. 
Please feel free to modify/expand/correct the wiki page when it becomes 
available with additional information as needed.

Thank you all very much for your collaboration.

Greetings from Spain.

Daniel

El 11/2/21 a las 23:42, Martin Koppenhoefer escribió:
> Am Do., 11. Feb. 2021 um 18:40 Uhr schrieb Daniel Capilla 
> <dcapillae at gmail.com <mailto: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
>     <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 
> <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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210212/01435ce1/attachment-0001.htm>