[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - holy well

[Peter Neale]

On Friday, 19 February 2021, 11:40:16 GMT, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
 
 
[SNIP]

>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.

+1 for historic=yes, as a possible attribute of a well (or of anything else).
>"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.
+1 for historic=yes (again)
>-- 
>Paul


Regards,Peter



_______________________________________________
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/20210219/41a885fb/attachment.htm>