[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - holy well

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 at 10:02, Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner at gmx.at> wrote:

> However, I think it might make more sense to include more historic
> sites that I think are excluded by the current proposal, e.g.:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuragic_holy_well
> historic=water_well might very well fit the "holy" wells in ireland too?
> They are definitely nothing new :)
>

Definitely nothing new?

How not-new is old enough to be historic?  Every time I ask that,
I get different answers.  Because "historic" does not mean old,
it means notable or memorable.  A memorial plaque installed
yesterday to commemorate an event that happened last week
is historic=memorial because it commemorates (memorializes)
a notable historical event.

Some construction work changes underground water flows and a new
spring appears miles away, a few hundred yards from the church of
St Beeblebrox.  It's a miracle!  It must be holy.  It's a NEW holy
well.  it makes a mockery of historic=water_well and we'd either
have to live with yet more misleading tagging or come up with
a new tag for non-historic holy wells.  So we might as well
start with something other than historic for holy wells to
which we can always add historic=yes if appropriate.

"Historic" does not mean the same thing as "historical."  "Historic"
does not mean "old," use start_date if you want to indicate
something is old (it doesn't just indicate that it's old, but
how old).  "Historic" does not mean "disused," use
disused=* or disused:*=* for that.

Some wells, whether holy or not, may genuinely be historic
in that a notable, memorable historical event happened there
because the well was there.  For those, add historic=yes.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210219/8c031f89/attachment.htm>