[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - holy well

[Bert -Araali- Van Opstal]

A nice example for the use of historic and path or footway related to
religious items is made by our Belgian Friends:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3010133556#map=18/51.19191/4.84147

Description about the item can be found here:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruisweg_(Herentals)

They tagged the chapel of course as a religious item.  The way_shrines
with way_shrine and as historic, the path has duplicate use, it's part
of a hiking network and it has a religious meaning.  It's used every
year to have a mass when they walk along the path past the shrines. But
primarily it is a hiking path. Does the same apply to the paths you
refer to Anne ?

You can make another route relation to include it in a hiking network
etc... without preferring any specific use on the path itself.

You can always use a site relation to link the church, the well, the
path or whatever other items and tag the relation with
amenity=place_of_worship.

On 19/02/2021 15:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Fr., 19. Feb. 2021 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen
> <pla16021 at gmail.com <mailto:pla16021 at gmail.com>>:
>
>     "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.
>
>
>
>
> We know you are strongly voicing this strict meaning of "historic"
> every now and then (and someone followed suite and changed the wiki
> accordingly), but for OSM tags, I would not expect it to have much
> bearing. Things tagged with "historic" are as much historic as
> "amenity" is about amenities. Many are, many are not. Historic as a
> main tag is just a container for things which are often historic in
> the strict sense, but if they are not, we do not (did not until now at
> least) refuse the tag for them. Any wayside cross is tagged with the
> "historic" key, not just those that are of exceptional significance.
> We do (did) not make this distinction. 
>
> 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/20210219/d2f3a25c/attachment.htm>