Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
Martin's "reply to some unilaterally writing on the key:historic page..." and "intended to say (something extraordinary) on one end and on the other end (something vague)" sort of "nudge ahead" this dizzying proposal, but not by much. I'm not complaining at the extra clarification. But it doesn't need clarification. It needs to be re-stated from scratch what it's about and what it does. (Or will do if Approved). Otherwise we start with muddy water and end up with muddier water. Truly, I don't wish to disparage or insult, but clarify. As of now, I can only get there with a blank slate and a re-write. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
sent from a phone > On 4 Dec 2022, at 11:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > only for features that are considered of historical significance. intended to say, “of extraordinary historical significance” on the one end, and the opposing direction is more like “generally somehow related to history” ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
sent from a phone > On 4 Dec 2022, at 10:57, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > "This key can be used on every observable feature that has a historical > meaning, regardless of ... interest to the OSM community." I believe this is in reply to some unilaterally writing on the key:historic page of the wiki that it should be used only for features that are considered of historical significance. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
This proposal, its history, its present and its future I find extremely confusing. It is enough for me to vote it down because it needs to be started from scratch (the proposal itself, not the voting on what is now too confusing a proposal). If we are re-voting, I'm not even sure I can find my way to vote "I oppose" on this. I don't mean to be unkind, I mean to be un-confused (and I'm not there yet). What Frederik says about individual flowers and that the wiki says so, yeah I get that and I agree, yet, it's all so confusing. Well, the way things are written now they are confusing. This "fully needs a re-write," if you ask me. The concept of "historic" IS complicated: we don't need it to be MORE complicated, in fact, "the simpler the better" (often, though not always true — if a bit of structure and complexity truly solves things, OK). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
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 frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
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 frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
Nov 5, 2022, 02:16 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 4 Nov 2022, at 13:17, Marc_marc wrote: >> >> our "sister" project (wikipedia) has no problem defining what is an anecdote >> and what is "relevance from a historic viewpoint", >> I don't see why we should have any issue doing it. >> > > > Mappers are working fundamentally different from wikipedia authors, because > they are recording observations, first hand study, while wikipedia work means > working with sources. Original research is explicitly frowned upon in > wikipedia while it is at the basis of mapping. We do not have relevance > criteria as a hurdle for inclusion of things, we only require them to exist. > I do not say relevance does not exist, but it is less important for our > mapping. We are creating “categories” of things by applying tags, and I do > not believe it would be helpful to have different main categories for the > same thing, depending on its historic relevance, hence I do not believe > redefining the “historic” key in this direction would be helpful for the > project. > Also, Wikipedia has long and bitter discussions about whether specific things are relevant or not. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
Vào lúc 18:16 2022-11-04, Martin Koppenhoefer đã viết: On 4 Nov 2022, at 13:17, Marc_marc wrote: our "sister" project (wikipedia) has no problem defining what is an anecdote and what is "relevance from a historic viewpoint", I don't see why we should have any issue doing it. Mappers are working fundamentally different from wikipedia authors, because they are recording observations, first hand study, while wikipedia work means working with sources. Original research is explicitly frowned upon in wikipedia while it is at the basis of mapping. We do not have relevance criteria as a hurdle for inclusion of things, we only require them to exist. I do not say relevance does not exist, but it is less important for our mapping. We are creating “categories” of things by applying tags, and I do not believe it would be helpful to have different main categories for the same thing, depending on its historic relevance, hence I do not believe redefining the “historic” key in this direction would be helpful for the project. I think this point would be every bit as applicable to our other sister project, OpenHistoricalMap, which works with both published sources (for the past) and observations (for the present). So far, OHM has hewn to OSM's tagging schemes, including the historic=* tags that are almost always anachronistic. For example, most historic=manor weren't historic the moment they were completed. A historic=battlefield may not have been historic until the tide turned in a larger campaign. I would expect historic=citywalls to be less common in OHM than barrier=city_wall. Both historic=* and heritage=* make a value judgment, but heritage designations are made by historical societies and government agencies. Who are we to make a similar designation as mappers? Maybe both OSM and OHM could live with historic=* being a misnomer as (wait for it) a historical accident, but if someone is coining a tag and they're choosing between historic=* and another suitable key, I'd advise them to pick the other key. -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
I truly oversimplify as I say this, re-definitions of tags is problematic. It results in a long-term destruction of OSM's own data. In short, you believe your preconceived notions of "knowing better" or "knowing it all" (or something like that) is better than "what OSM already says." Now, I really am for "bettering" our map. Re-tagging? Whoa, slow down, careful. Look carefully. Gain knowledge from what has already happened here. Re-defining historic is something that must be very, and I mean VERY carefully considered. OSM can't have too many re-definitions. It is like self-induced schizophrenia to act too much in a certain direction. I've lived through a large variety of "re-definitions" of things (parks and railways and bicycle routes and forests and woods and others) and re-definitions make it difficult to get along with each other. Stability in tagging really is good. We want to coin. We want to blend, though smartly. Historic? Yes, it has its world, it has its place, it has its tagging. This is an important discussion. Careful, everyone. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
sent from a phone > On 4 Nov 2022, at 13:17, Marc_marc wrote: > > our "sister" project (wikipedia) has no problem defining what is an anecdote > and what is "relevance from a historic viewpoint", > I don't see why we should have any issue doing it. Mappers are working fundamentally different from wikipedia authors, because they are recording observations, first hand study, while wikipedia work means working with sources. Original research is explicitly frowned upon in wikipedia while it is at the basis of mapping. We do not have relevance criteria as a hurdle for inclusion of things, we only require them to exist. I do not say relevance does not exist, but it is less important for our mapping. We are creating “categories” of things by applying tags, and I do not believe it would be helpful to have different main categories for the same thing, depending on its historic relevance, hence I do not believe redefining the “historic” key in this direction would be helpful for the project. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
Vào lúc 09:36 2022-11-04, Anne-Karoline Distel đã viết: The point I was trying to make is that in the iD editor, the field "inscription" comes up as a default and is mis-used for descriptions. I would like to see a way to prevent that. Obviously, a signpost has an inscription, but that field maybe comes up for signpost which I would presume is the primary key. I usually map signposts/ guideposts in situ rather than in iD, so I don't know off the top of my head what fields come up for it. The Inscription field is only included in certain presets. The only non-historic=* presets that have this field are: amenity=bench (hidden by default) amenity=clock display=sundial amenity=lounger cemetery=grave man_made=cross man_made=obelisk man_made=survey_point (hidden by default) marker=* tourism=artwork artwork_type=bust It is also included in the preset for historic=*. However, that fallback preset only appears if the feature isn't tagged with anything else that matches a preset. It won't appear for example on a feature tagged historic=manor or a feature tagged building=detached historic=aircraft. It isn't included in the preset for tourism=information information=guidepost. You can verify which fields are included in which presets by searching the id-tagging-schema repository. [1] As Mateusz said, please open an issue in this repository if you believe the field is included in any of these presets inappropriately. If you have evidence that users frequently confuse Inscription with Description, please include it in your bug report. Off the top of my head, one solution could be to make Inscription an initially hidden field on some of these presets where an inscription is less likely, or to make Description an initially visible field alongside Inscription. As far as I can tell, there's nothing strictly limiting inscription=* to historic inscriptions, so I think it would be reasonable to use it on the traffic_sign=* node of a nonstandard sign [2] or on a historically unremarkable advertising=sign. [1] https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/search?q=inscription [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sidewalk_regulatory_sign,_Mill_Street,_Peninsula,_Ohio.jpg -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
In case of systematic issues caused by iD mappers you can report problem at https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema Possible solution may be presenting also description field or better describing inscription field Nov 4, 2022, 17:36 by annekadis...@web.de: > > The point I was trying to make is that in the iD editor, the field > "inscription" comes up as a default and is mis-used for descriptions. I > would like to see a way to prevent that. > > > Obviously, a signpost has an inscription, but that field maybe comes up > for signpost which I would presume is the primary key. I usually map > signposts/ guideposts in situ rather than in iD, so I don't know off the > top of my head what fields come up for it. > > > Anne > > On 04/11/2022 16:01, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > >> I'll offer a well-known example from my country: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Fabulous_Las_Vegas_sign >> >> It's on the US National Register of Historic Places which should >> qualify it as a historic sign. Although I suppose those in Europe >> would just consider the sign to be a little old. >> >> On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 11:56 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>> >> tagging@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote: >> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Post_Historic_District >>> >>> >>> Nov 4, 2022, 16:38 by >>> annekadis...@web.de>>> : >>> I wasn't aware bicycle parking and sign posts are considered historic now. :P On 04/11/2022 15:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Taggingwrote: > > > > Nov 4, 2022, 12:59 by > annekadis...@web.de> : > >> >> I also noticed that the >> inscription>> key is used a lot >> where it should be >> description>> .I think >> that's the "fault" of the iD editor form forhistoric >> features. The >> inscription>> field only makes sense for >> memorials IMHO. >> >> > I used it for graves, crosses, monuments, > amenity > = drinking_water, man_made =signpost, > amenity = bicycle_parking > > I see it also being validly used for > manyother > objects. > > > ___Tagging mailing list> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >>> >>> ___ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> >> ___Tagging mailing list>> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
The point I was trying to make is that in the iD editor, the field "inscription" comes up as a default and is mis-used for descriptions. I would like to see a way to prevent that. Obviously, a signpost has an inscription, but that field maybe comes up for signpost which I would presume is the primary key. I usually map signposts/ guideposts in situ rather than in iD, so I don't know off the top of my head what fields come up for it. Anne On 04/11/2022 16:01, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: I'll offer a well-known example from my country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Fabulous_Las_Vegas_sign It's on the US National Register of Historic Places which should qualify it as a historic sign. Although I suppose those in Europe would just consider the sign to be a little old. On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 11:56 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Post_Historic_District Nov 4, 2022, 16:38 by annekadis...@web.de: I wasn't aware bicycle parking and sign posts are considered historic now. :P On 04/11/2022 15:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Nov 4, 2022, 12:59 by annekadis...@web.de: I also noticed that the inscription key is used a lot where it should be description. I think that's the "fault" of the iD editor form for historic features. The inscription field only makes sense for memorials IMHO. I used it for graves, crosses, monuments, amenity = drinking_water, man_made = signpost, * amenity = bicycle_parking * * I see it also being validly used for many other objects. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
I would say the lighting is slightly outdated. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 4 nov. 2022 om 17:06 heeft Brian M. Sperlongano het > volgende geschreven: > > > I'll offer a well-known example from my country: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Fabulous_Las_Vegas_sign > > It's on the US National Register of Historic Places which should qualify it > as a historic sign. Although I suppose those in Europe would just consider > the sign to be a little old. > >> On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 11:56 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Post_Historic_District >> >> >> Nov 4, 2022, 16:38 by annekadis...@web.de: >> I wasn't aware bicycle parking and sign posts are considered historic now. :P >> >> On 04/11/2022 15:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Nov 4, 2022, 12:59 by annekadis...@web.de: >>> I also noticed that the inscription key is used a lot where it should be >>> description. I think that's the "fault" of the iD editor form for historic >>> features. The inscription field only makes sense for memorials IMHO. >>> >>> I used it for graves, crosses, monuments, amenity = drinking_water, >>> man_made = signpost, >>> amenity = bicycle_parking >>> >>> I see it also being validly used for many other objects. >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
I'll offer a well-known example from my country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Fabulous_Las_Vegas_sign It's on the US National Register of Historic Places which should qualify it as a historic sign. Although I suppose those in Europe would just consider the sign to be a little old. On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 11:56 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Post_Historic_District > > > Nov 4, 2022, 16:38 by annekadis...@web.de: > > I wasn't aware bicycle parking and sign posts are considered historic now. > :P > On 04/11/2022 15:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > > > > > Nov 4, 2022, 12:59 by annekadis...@web.de: > > I also noticed that the inscription key is used a lot where it should be > description. I think that's the "fault" of the iD editor form for > historic features. The inscription field only makes sense for memorials > IMHO. > > I used it for graves, crosses, monuments, amenity = drinking_water, > man_made = signpost, > >- amenity = bicycle_parking >- >- I see it also being validly used for many other objects. > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing > listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Post_Historic_District Nov 4, 2022, 16:38 by annekadis...@web.de: > > I wasn't aware bicycle parking and sign posts are considered historic > now. :P > > On 04/11/2022 15:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> >> >> >> Nov 4, 2022, 12:59 by >> annekadis...@web.de>> : >> >>> >>> I also noticed that the >>> inscription>>> key is used a lot >>> where it should be >>> description>>> . I think that's the "fault" >>> of the iD editor form for historic features. The >>> >>> inscription>>> field only makes sense for memorials IMHO. >>> >>> >> I used it for graves, crosses, monuments, >> amenity = drinking_water, >> man_made = signpost, >> amenity = bicycle_parking >> >> I see it also being validly used for >> manyother objects. >> >> >> ___Tagging mailing list>> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
I wasn't aware bicycle parking and sign posts are considered historic now. :P On 04/11/2022 15:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Nov 4, 2022, 12:59 by annekadis...@web.de: I also noticed that the inscription key is used a lot where it should be description. I think that's the "fault" of the iD editor form for historic features. The inscription field only makes sense for memorials IMHO. I used it for graves, crosses, monuments, amenity = drinking_water, man_made = signpost, # amenity = bicycle_parking # # I see it also being validly used for many other objects. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
Nov 4, 2022, 12:59 by annekadis...@web.de: > > I also noticed that the > inscription> key is used a lot where it should be > > description> . I think that's the "fault" of the iD editor form for > historic features. The > inscription> field only makes sense for > memorials IMHO. > > I used it for graves, crosses, monuments, amenity = drinking_water, man_made = signpost, amenity = bicycle_parking I see it also being validly used for many other objects. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
Le 03.11.22 à 14:20, Volker Schmidt a écrit : I think the best way out is to think detached from the meaning of the strings of characters we use for tagging. osm isn't wikidata. it's perfect fine to use P123=Q1234 for wikidata. osm use "human readable" string , that's allow the "any key you want/need" the purpose of the wiki is to describe the tagging as is, not as it should be an ideal tagging system. nor should the wiki be a "osm-to-human translator" like wikidata label do. the wiki accompanies, helps, improves the understanding of tags, it should not become a counter-intuitive tag bible for the sake of promoting anarchic tag organization ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
Le 04.11.22 à 09:35, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : the tag “historic” is about features that typically or frequently are historic, it isn’t a tag to exclude those features of the same kind that aren’t. exept the mess with tombs, most objet 'll never have this kind of issue. so i don't understand whitch kind of edit ward you warn to promote immobility. our "sister" project (wikipedia) has no problem defining what is an anecdote and what is "relevance from a historic viewpoint", I don't see why we should have any issue doing it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
I agree in the observation that some people just tag anything old as historic, even just shops that have closed (now, I don't know - maybe those specific shops played a vital role in the community). And it might also be due to language barriers, I don't know how the editors present in other languages, I'm just saying. Anyway, I've been thinking about criteria for the historic key, and I think it would go somewhat similar to the relevancy requirements on Wikipedia (not that I always agree with those): The feature should be of local, regional, national or international relevance from a historic viewpoint, proven by them * having a plaque on them about the specific feature or a plaque showing they're heritage (see images below) * being part of a heritage trail * being on some sort of locally produced heritage map on paper/ online or on tourism=information * being on a local, national or international heritage register * having something scholarly published about them * being part of a larger group of features which have been acknowledged as being historic without this specific one being written about (church, creamery, smithy, school); this often applies to disused or re-used amenity buildings * primary source for historic research (graveyards, memorials) * (having a wikidata item. But things might be more likely to be on OSM than having a wikidata item. Maybe wikipedia page is easier) I'm personally not happy about the wayside crosses and shrines being part of the historic group, but I have no alternative idea. It also needs to be made clear that the values following the historic key need to be in English and not be the proper name or description of the feature. I've been doing a lot of work translating many of the values and subsequently re-tagging in the last couple of weeks. I also noticed that the inscription key is used a lot where it should be description. I think that's the "fault" of the iD editor form for historic features. The inscription field only makes sense for memorials IMHO. File:Fógra (notice), Tory Island - geograph.org.uk - 2492988.jpg Notice on national monument in Ireland https://emailschildershop.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Denkmalschilder-Denkmalschutz.jpg Sign (also available as metal plaques) in Germany for national monuments Anne On 04/11/2022 07:17, Warin wrote: On 4/11/22 00:20, Volker Schmidt wrote: I think the best way out is to think detached from the meaning of the strings of characters we use for tagging. Let's document that we have have certain values for the key "historic" that describe objects that are not historic, and not even old. After all the purpose of the wiki is to describe the tagging as is, not as it should be an ideal tagging system. Disagree. Pedantic hat on: This way we end up with colour=black for the colour white. And colour=clam for some aesthetic judgement of the colour. We voting on the key/tag, as proposed not the past use (misuse) of the key. If people want to tag 'old' things with the key 'old' .. I would rather they use the tag start_date=* as that would have more information. A 30 year old may think something 50 years 'old' is 'old', an 80 year 'old' probably would not think that is 'old'. Some will conclude that "old' is too subjective to tag within OSM ... Future example: cloths lines. There are 4 possible key values - two of them exist in OSM ... one of them I 'like' because I have been using it since childhood. That does not mean that any of the 4 values is 'wrong' .. the question should be what makes the most sense for most people, failing that what is easiest to meaningfully translate into other languages (note the trailing s!). Still thinking about that. Using a tag for things other than the common meaning of that word (or word group) is simply confusing and should be avoided. On Thu, 3 Nov 2022, 14:05 Brian M. Sperlongano, wrote: The main issue I have with this proposal is that there is a longstanding controversy regarding the historic key. Namely, the question of whether it is used for things that are historic or merely old. I don't see how a proposal centered around this key can move forward with that fundamental debate unaddressed. On Thu, Nov 3, 2022, 8:56 AM Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: Thanks for pointing that out, I've closed the vote again, and will open again tomorrow. I don't know if that it the procedure when you correct an oversight on the proposal page. Anne On 03/11/2022 12:16, Daniel Capilla wrote: > Please, > > Check the wiki talk page of this proposal before opening the voting > time. Some issues are not cleared resolved. > > Thank you. > > > Regards, > > > Daniel Capilla > > > ___ > Tagging mailin
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
sent from a phone > On 4 Nov 2022, at 08:21, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Using a tag for things other than the common meaning of that word (or word > group) is simply confusing and should be avoided. I may be misguided, but from reading dictionaries it seems to me that the terms “historic” and “historical” are often used interchangeably in “common use”, although formal use has distinctive criteria for both. The question about age is not very helpful, something can have happened yesterday and have ended an era and be historic today, on the other hand, something older than x will always be interesting for historians (because few objects of this time have survived, where x is some hundreds or thousands of years). Generally, the tag “historic” is about features that typically or frequently are historic, it isn’t a tag to exclude those features of the same kind that aren’t. It also integrates some religious features which are often neither old nor historic in another sense (unless you see religion as a whole as something of the past), wayside crosses and shrines for example, which are ranks 3 and 6 of all historic values, 260k objects (17%) alone. Memorials 313k (20%) may be new, but they are always referring to history. We do not judge memorials by their perceived significance, we consider all memorials historically significant enough for getting the tag. It would open Pandora’s box if we were to make differences between objects important for history / connected to important historical events, and others that we consider “old but not of historic relevance”. This is mostly subjective and not really measurable or verifiable, and we would not gain anything by formalizing such rules. People would see different things important and we would have pointless discussions or edit wars about relevance. What would we gain by restricting the use of the historic key more than it is now? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
On 4/11/22 00:20, Volker Schmidt wrote: I think the best way out is to think detached from the meaning of the strings of characters we use for tagging. Let's document that we have have certain values for the key "historic" that describe objects that are not historic, and not even old. After all the purpose of the wiki is to describe the tagging as is, not as it should be an ideal tagging system. Disagree. Pedantic hat on: This way we end up with colour=black for the colour white. And colour=clam for some aesthetic judgement of the colour. We voting on the key/tag, as proposed not the past use (misuse) of the key. If people want to tag 'old' things with the key 'old' .. I would rather they use the tag start_date=* as that would have more information. A 30 year old may think something 50 years 'old' is 'old', an 80 year 'old' probably would not think that is 'old'. Some will conclude that "old' is too subjective to tag within OSM ... Future example: cloths lines. There are 4 possible key values - two of them exist in OSM ... one of them I 'like' because I have been using it since childhood. That does not mean that any of the 4 values is 'wrong' .. the question should be what makes the most sense for most people, failing that what is easiest to meaningfully translate into other languages (note the trailing s!). Still thinking about that. Using a tag for things other than the common meaning of that word (or word group) is simply confusing and should be avoided. On Thu, 3 Nov 2022, 14:05 Brian M. Sperlongano, wrote: The main issue I have with this proposal is that there is a longstanding controversy regarding the historic key. Namely, the question of whether it is used for things that are historic or merely old. I don't see how a proposal centered around this key can move forward with that fundamental debate unaddressed. On Thu, Nov 3, 2022, 8:56 AM Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: Thanks for pointing that out, I've closed the vote again, and will open again tomorrow. I don't know if that it the procedure when you correct an oversight on the proposal page. Anne On 03/11/2022 12:16, Daniel Capilla wrote: > Please, > > Check the wiki talk page of this proposal before opening the voting > time. Some issues are not cleared resolved. > > Thank you. > > > Regards, > > > Daniel Capilla > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
I don't know if people didn't get the message that I had to stop the voting process, because I had to make a change to the proposal page, and if they're not reading the headings on the page. The opening of the voting booths is retracted and you can merrily discuss away. Martin can re-open the vote when he has the time. Anne On 03/11/2022 13:36, Sarah Hoffmann via Tagging wrote: On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 11:56:45AM +, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: Hello all, Martin is too busy the next couple of days, so with his permission I have opened the voting booths for the key historic to be approved. The minimum 2 weeks passed a couple of days ago, and the discussion has died down, so hopefully everyone is ready to vote. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Historic I'm not quite sure if that has been discussed yet with three places for discussion to chose from, but the proposal has a rather big flaw in my eyes: historic=* is one of these keys that is used as a primary key to define the object but also frequently seen as a property for other objects to mark them as historic. In contrast to other keys, there doesn't even seem to be any clear distinction for single values if they are meant to be used as a property or a main tag. Random example: historic=manor. About 77% of objects tagged with historic=manor have a building=* tag, which makes perfect sense. A manor is a building after all. So it looks like historic=manor is more of a property tag to a building. But what about the 23% other manors that are not tagged as building? Is a historic=manor without a builing=* tag meant to be used as a primary key? I would expect that an apporved wiki page to historic=* mentions this problem and gives some guidance to mappers and data users how to handle this situation. Sarah ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
sent from a phone > On 3 Nov 2022, at 14:39, Sarah Hoffmann via Tagging > wrote: > > Random example: historic=manor. About 77% of objects tagged with > historic=manor have a building=* tag, which makes perfect sense. A manor > is a building after all. So it looks like historic=manor is more of a > property tag to a building. But what about the 23% other manors that are > not tagged as building? Is a historic=manor without a builing=* tag > meant to be used as a primary key? you said manor is an example, and I agree, but we have still to look at all object types individually, because for a historic=castle only 58% have a building tag, and looking closer we might eventually find that some of them could be extended as well. A castle (defensive one, this tag is very generic compared to manor) typically is composed of several buildings, open space, defensive walls and more, so having a combination with building seems less likely unless the mapper has selected the main building and ignored the others. Similarly I could imagine a manor to be bigger than a single building, e.g. comprising ancillary buildings, a garden or similar. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 11:56:45AM +, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: > Hello all, > > Martin is too busy the next couple of days, so with his permission I > have opened the voting booths for the key historic to be approved. The > minimum 2 weeks passed a couple of days ago, and the discussion has died > down, so hopefully everyone is ready to vote. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Historic I'm not quite sure if that has been discussed yet with three places for discussion to chose from, but the proposal has a rather big flaw in my eyes: historic=* is one of these keys that is used as a primary key to define the object but also frequently seen as a property for other objects to mark them as historic. In contrast to other keys, there doesn't even seem to be any clear distinction for single values if they are meant to be used as a property or a main tag. Random example: historic=manor. About 77% of objects tagged with historic=manor have a building=* tag, which makes perfect sense. A manor is a building after all. So it looks like historic=manor is more of a property tag to a building. But what about the 23% other manors that are not tagged as building? Is a historic=manor without a builing=* tag meant to be used as a primary key? I would expect that an apporved wiki page to historic=* mentions this problem and gives some guidance to mappers and data users how to handle this situation. Sarah ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
I think the best way out is to think detached from the meaning of the strings of characters we use for tagging. Let's document that we have have certain values for the key "historic" that describe objects that are not historic, and not even old. After all the purpose of the wiki is to describe the tagging as is, not as it should be an ideal tagging system. On Thu, 3 Nov 2022, 14:05 Brian M. Sperlongano, wrote: > The main issue I have with this proposal is that there is a longstanding > controversy regarding the historic key. Namely, the question of whether it > is used for things that are historic or merely old. I don't see how a > proposal centered around this key can move forward with that fundamental > debate unaddressed. > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022, 8:56 AM Anne-Karoline Distel > wrote: > >> Thanks for pointing that out, I've closed the vote again, and will open >> again tomorrow. I don't know if that it the procedure when you correct >> an oversight on the proposal page. >> >> Anne >> >> On 03/11/2022 12:16, Daniel Capilla wrote: >> > Please, >> > >> > Check the wiki talk page of this proposal before opening the voting >> > time. Some issues are not cleared resolved. >> > >> > Thank you. >> > >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > >> > Daniel Capilla >> > >> > >> > ___ >> > Tagging mailing list >> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
The main issue I have with this proposal is that there is a longstanding controversy regarding the historic key. Namely, the question of whether it is used for things that are historic or merely old. I don't see how a proposal centered around this key can move forward with that fundamental debate unaddressed. On Thu, Nov 3, 2022, 8:56 AM Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: > Thanks for pointing that out, I've closed the vote again, and will open > again tomorrow. I don't know if that it the procedure when you correct > an oversight on the proposal page. > > Anne > > On 03/11/2022 12:16, Daniel Capilla wrote: > > Please, > > > > Check the wiki talk page of this proposal before opening the voting > > time. Some issues are not cleared resolved. > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Daniel Capilla > > > > > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
Thanks for pointing that out, I've closed the vote again, and will open again tomorrow. I don't know if that it the procedure when you correct an oversight on the proposal page. Anne On 03/11/2022 12:16, Daniel Capilla wrote: Please, Check the wiki talk page of this proposal before opening the voting time. Some issues are not cleared resolved. Thank you. Regards, Daniel Capilla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
Please, Check the wiki talk page of this proposal before opening the voting time. Some issues are not cleared resolved. Thank you. Regards, Daniel Capilla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic
Hello all, Martin is too busy the next couple of days, so with his permission I have opened the voting booths for the key historic to be approved. The minimum 2 weeks passed a couple of days ago, and the discussion has died down, so hopefully everyone is ready to vote. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Historic Take care, everyone! Anne aka b-unicycling ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
