[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic

[Frederik Ramm]

Ah, I see now I put this in my vote on the 2nd voting round. -- I also 
see that I asked there why abandoned railways were mentioned since I 
thought they had their own key and wern't using "historic", is this an 
intentional change? Is the re-tagging of abandoned railways proposed here?

On 04.12.22 10:53, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I could swear I had written this as a public message long ago but I 
> cannot find it now. Sorry, then, for the last-minute interruption. I had 
> an issue with the proposal, namely the wording:
> 
> "This key can be used on every observable feature that has a historical 
> meaning, regardless of ... interest to the OSM community."
> 
> This is asking for trouble. There is a delicate balance in OSM - you can 
> map what you want and you don't have to ask permission, but there are 
> limits. If you were to start mapping, say, individual flowers, then a 
> discussion would arise and it is quite possible that the community 
> decides that this is going too far and you will be asked to stop.
> 
> The same can happen with features that have a historical meaning. The 
> OSM community needs to at least have sufficient interest to let you do 
> your thing. Explicitly putting here, in writing, that the OSM community 
> may not interefere in someone's mapping of historic features would be a 
> first, and I can already see the discussions down the line where someone 
> goes over the top, another person complains, and the first person then 
> says "BUT THE WIKI SAYS I CAN DO IT!!!!"
> 
> I'm sure this is not the intention of this proposal - in fact I am 
> unsure what the intention of "... regardless of interest to the OSM 
> community" is. I think that bullet point should simply be dropped, as it 
> is either stating the obvious (map what you want) or inciting trouble 
> (ignore it when people complain).
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"