<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Since the tag man_made=threshing_floor has already been used 7 times (<a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=threshing_floor#values">https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=threshing_floor#values</a>) you can create a page to document this, however, you would also need to mention that historic=threshing_floor is much more common (actually landuse=threshing_floor is also equally common), and it would probably be fair to create a historic=threshing_floor wiki page too, in that case. </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div>If you want to suggest deprecating historic=threshing_floor and replacing it with man_made=threshing_floor, or otherwise changing existing common usage, you should make a proposal so that the community can discuss this.</div><div><br></div><div>-- Joseph Eisenberg</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 2:53 PM António Madeira via Tagging <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
  
    
  
  <div>
    So, given that most of those who commented this thread agreed that
    threshing_floor should be in the man_made scheme, should I add it to
    the wiki or create a Feature Proposal?<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <div>Às 19:27 de 06/11/2020, Paul Allen
      escreveu:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      
      <div dir="ltr">On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 21:53, Martin Koppenhoefer
        <<a href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com" target="_blank">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
            <div dir="ltr">
              <div class="gmail_quote">
                <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020
                  um 13:56 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen <<a href="mailto:pla16021@gmail.com" target="_blank">pla16021@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
                </div>
                <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
                  <div dir="ltr">
                    <div dir="ltr">On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 09:09, Martin
                      Koppenhoefer <<a href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com" target="_blank">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>>
                      wrote:<br>
                    </div>
                    <br>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
              </div>
              <div class="gmail_quote">...
                <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
                  <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
                    <div dir="ltr">
                      <div>To me it doesn't make sense to draw a line,
                        dividing the same objects having more or less
                        historic value. If there is something to
                        distinguish at all, my suggestion would be to
                        add a qualifier to those objects of exceptional
                        historical value (if this is verifiable).</div>
                    </div>
                  </blockquote>
                  <div><br>
                  </div>
                  <div>We have a way of tagging objects of exceptional
                    historical value, it's</div>
                  <div>historic=*.  Objects of unexceptional historical
                    value, or of no historical</div>
                  <div>value do not get tagged with historic=*.  That's
                    because historic is</div>
                  <div>not a synonym (in the real world or in tagging)
                    for old, disused or</div>
                  <div>repurposed.</div>
                </blockquote>
              </div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>just that it is not what we are currently doing.</div>
              <br>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
          <div>That is not what some of us are currently doing.  Others
            read the wiki page</div>
          <div>and tag accordingly.</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>It occurs to me that some of the mis-tagging (as I see
            it) and some of the</div>
          <div>discussions here may revolve around semantics as
            interpreted by</div>
          <div>those who do not have English as a first language.  There
            is a</div>
          <div>difference between "historical" and "historic."</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>Historians are concerned with historical data.  Old data
            (about</div>
          <div>populations, diseases or whatever) is historical data. 
            The</div>
          <div> assassination of a minor archduke, which seemed
            unimportant</div>
          <div>at the time, quickly turned into a historic event.</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>When somebody says that "historic" applies to everything
            that</div>
          <div>historians do, that is incorrect.  What historians mostly
            do is</div>
          <div>look at historical data, some small fraction of which is</div>
          <div>also historic.</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>See <a href="https://www.grammarly.com/blog/historic-historical/" target="_blank">https://www.grammarly.com/blog/historic-historical/<br>
            </a></div>
          <div>for a better explanation.<br>
          </div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>So historic=* really should only apply (as the wiki page
            states) to the important</div>
          <div>things of the past, not everything some random historian
            might happen</div>
          <div>to be looking into.</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>So the question is, do we accept that because some
            mappers have misused</div>
          <div>the tag we should encourage that misuse or do we
            discourage it?</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>-- <br>
          </div>
          <div>Paul</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset></fieldset>
      <pre>_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </div>

_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div>