Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Also, I'm not sure if it was mentioned by proponents here, but Voting on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Historic has been re-started. (also note that initial votes have been nullified by proponents; so if you voted before, you might have to do it again). On a personal

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Or have "cannot start vote for month after last one started"? What would you count as "inflight proposals"? What about proposals that are intended to be in permanent draft status (I did it with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=2139256 as I intended to document situation without

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Am Mi., 12. Okt. 2022 um 16:19 Uhr schrieb Marc_marc : > On 12/10/2022 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > >> we do not need the historic key to be “approved”, > > you don't need please do not speak for others, it was a way if saying; "the history key cannot be more approved as it is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Am Mi., 12. Okt. 2022 um 12:03 Uhr schrieb martianfreeloader < martianfreeloa...@posteo.net>: > So then what's the point of approving tags anyways? there is not much sense in the act of "approving", the meaningful part has happened before, the main benefit lies in the process, improving the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 at 17:42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > are all military tags about current use by the military, or maybe they can > also be used for military installations that aren’t used currently? Is a > military base that is now abandoned still a military base? Or a bunker?What > are

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Well, I have not seen the object in question, so I don't know what it is. Perhaps it is a "barrier=wall; historic=yes"or an "abandonned:building=house; historic=yes;"or abandonned:place=village; historic=yes" all, possibly with "ruins=yes" Regards,Peter(PeterPan99) On Wednesday, 12 October

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Oct 12, 2022, 16:23 by marc_m...@mailo.com: > Le 12.10.22 à 13:15, Sebastian Martin Dicke a écrit : > >> If there is an aircraft standing on an airstrip which has been >> decommissioned yesterday (or thirty minutes ago), is it considered properly >> to tag them as historic=aircraft? >> > > I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Vào lúc 07:16 2022-10-12, Marc_marc đã viết: approving that "historic=* is about "with historical significance" doesn't change anything about already existing historic=value without historical significance. existing tags always remain unless someone has the courage to try to make progress on the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Le 12.10.22 à 13:15, Sebastian Martin Dicke a écrit : If there is an aircraft standing on an airstrip which has been decommissioned yesterday (or thirty minutes ago), is it considered properly to tag them as historic=aircraft? I think it depends on the history of the object : if the last

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

On 12/10/2022 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: we do not need the historic key to be “approved”, you don't need please do not speak for others, you are not a spokesperson :) :) Approving a definition that would make current tagging an “error” approving that "historic=* is about "with

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Le 12.10.22 à 09:55, Peter Neale via Tagging a écrit : historic is an attribute of an object that IS something else what's "something else" is a historic=archaeological_site ? and a historic=ruins ? ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Oct 12, 2022, 11:59 by martianfreeloa...@posteo.net: > > > On 12/10/2022 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> we do not need the historic key to be “approved”, it is already there, any >> definition we put in the wiki should reflect how the tags are actually used. >> Approving a definition

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

In Germany I found at least one battlefield from the mid of the last century which is tagged as historic=battlefield. Both in English and in German the mid of the last century is included in that what is modern. In Germany the modern period is often considered as a time span from the beginning

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

On 12/10/2022 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: we do not need the historic key to be “approved”, it is already there, any definition we put in the wiki should reflect how the tags are actually used. Approving a definition that would make current tagging an “error” if it is completely

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

>That could also be an option, but would that stop them rendering as current >military features? One could argue that, if they are no longer military featuers, they should not be tagged as mililtary features.  "historic=battlefield" does this and we are probably not mapping any current / modern

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

sent from a phone > On 12 Oct 2022, at 04:39, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > I would love to be able to move the vast majority of military= to > historic=military, as they are no longer military installations. > > Yes, they certainly were, but they aren't any more. are all military tags

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

sent from a phone > On 11 Oct 2022, at 17:32, martianfreeloader > wrote: > > Nobody commented during RFC and then everybody voted against; which is not > nice. I was one of them. particularly because the no vote didn’t offer any meaningful contribution, the only reason given was a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

sent from a phone > On 11 Oct 2022, at 15:37, martianfreeloader > wrote: > > Do you have a suggestion how to fix this? it is not broken, unless your proposal gets approved ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 23:28, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Maybe there would be value in deapproving historic=battlefield > I would love to be able to move the vast majority of military= to historic=military, as they are no longer military installations.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Oct 11, 2022, 17:05 by marc_m...@mailo.com: > Le 11.10.22 à 16:16, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : > >> do not attempt to have nice definition for all keys >> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Counterintuitive_keys_and_values > > I find the advice very strange > on the contrary

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

I appreciate the effort here, but I think it's too broad. I would rather have a more focused look at individual keys that considers what the tagging alternatives are to each, and to assess whether there is duplication and/or debates surrounding them that are worth investigating. There is really

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Keeping the status as de facto, avoids confusion about approval status of the values. I think it's best to pick another battle. Peter Elderson > Op 11 okt. 2022 om 17:14 heeft martianfreeloader > het volgende geschreven: > > I've reduced the proposal to the historic=* key itself. No values

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Yeah, sorry. I'm doing this out of courtesy for B-unicycling. They had started the Crannog proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crannog Nobody commented during RFC and then everybody voted against; which is not nice. I was one of them. I'm happy to hand over the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

I would propose that it might be a good idea to reduce the number of inflight proposals per person to one. As it is there is a flood of proposals that only the most diehard tagging proposal commenters can and will take the time to look at and consider with all the negative consequences that

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

I've reduced the proposal to the historic=* key itself. No values included anymore. On 11/10/2022 17:03, Marc_marc wrote: Le 11.10.22 à 16:01, Peter Neale via Tagging a écrit : Many ruins and memorials are "of historic interest" it is true, but that could be tagged as a property

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Le 11.10.22 à 16:16, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : do not attempt to have nice definition for all keys https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Counterintuitive_keys_and_values I find the advice very strange on the contrary let's try to have a nice definition for all keys and not

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Le 11.10.22 à 16:01, Peter Neale via Tagging a écrit : Many ruins and memorials are "of historic interest" it is true, but that could be tagged as a property ("historic=yes") of the object "man_made=" . witch main tag for aa ruins with historic interest ? it's not a building=* anymore and

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

As I mentioned on the community forum, the historic=* key is full of tags that should really need to be revisited, changed or redefined before they can be voted on. I strongly advise against approving all historic=* tags en masse. Elaboration on the community forum:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

On 11/10/2022 14:54, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: Obviously, I support this. It has its own preset scheme in the iD editor, its own icons etc. The following are missing (of the top of my head, because I proposed them) from the list and were approved already: creamery

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

No, as long as meaning is not being changed. Oct 11, 2022, 15:29 by martianfreeloa...@posteo.net: > Thanks. Do you see a problem with approving a de facto key? > > > > On 11/10/2022 15:25, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> I see no value in approving de facto key. >> >> Maybe there would

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Oct 11, 2022, 15:31 by martianfreeloa...@posteo.net: > > > On 11/10/2022 15:25, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> Also, is "are of historic interest" mismatches how >> historic=wayside_shrine >> historic=memorial >> many historic=wayside_cross >> are used. >> > > Do you have a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Oct 11, 2022, 15:39 by marc_m...@mailo.com: > Le 11.10.22 à 15:25, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : > >> I see no value in approving de facto key. >> >> Maybe there would be value in deapproving historic=battlefield >> >> Also, is "are of historic interest" mismatches how >>

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

IMHO "historic" should not be a primary key at all.  Many ruins and memorials are "of historic interest" it is true, but that could be tagged as a property ("historic=yes") of the object "man_made=" . What about a modern memorial?  Can that be "of historic interest", if it is only 2 years old? 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Thanks. I've just added ogham stone to the "already approved" list. On 11/10/2022 15:54, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: Obviously, I support this. It has its own preset scheme in the iD editor, its own icons etc. The following are missing (of the top of my head, because I proposed them) from

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Obviously, I support this. It has its own preset scheme in the iD editor, its own icons etc. The following are missing (of the top of my head, because I proposed them) from the list and were approved already: creamery ogham stone

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Le 11.10.22 à 15:25, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : I see no value in approving de facto key. Maybe there would be value in deapproving historic=battlefield Also, is "are of historic interest" mismatches how historic=wayside_shrine historic=memorial many historic=wayside_cross are

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

On 11/10/2022 15:25, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Also, is "are of historic interest" mismatches how historic=wayside_shrine historic=memorial many historic=wayside_cross are used. Do you have a suggestion how to fix this? ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

On 11/10/2022 15:25, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Maybe there would be value in deapproving historic=battlefield This is not in the scope of this proposal. Feel free to start a proposal do deapprove battlefield. ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Thanks. Do you see a problem with approving a de facto key? On 11/10/2022 15:25, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: I see no value in approving de facto key. Maybe there would be value in deapproving historic=battlefield Also, is "are of historic interest" mismatches how

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

I see no value in approving de facto key. Maybe there would be value in deapproving historic=battlefield Also, is "are of historic interest" mismatches how historic=wayside_shrine historic=memorial many historic=wayside_cross are used. Oct 11, 2022, 15:15 by martianfreeloa...@posteo.net: >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - historic=tombstone

On 10 April 2017 23:27:36 CEST, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >2017-04-10 22:55 GMT+02:00 Michal Fabík : > >> Definition: use this tag for prominent tombstones > > > >I would not put "prominent" in the definition, otherwise the question >will >be:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - historic=tombstone

2017-04-10 22:55 GMT+02:00 Michal Fabík : > Definition: use this tag for prominent tombstones I would not put "prominent" in the definition, otherwise the question will be: how can we tag a non-prominent tombstone? Cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - historic=tree_shrine

I would dispute Just because the node is tagged as *wayside_shrine* in combination with *natural=tree* does not mean that there has to be a tree shrine (could also be a regular wayside_shrine and a tree which are too close together to tag them effectively as two different nodes). It is always

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - historic=marker

In the UK many of these would come under the heading of blue plaques. If you follow wikipedia through on this topic it talks about historical marker in the first sentence so people wishing to map these features may well search for this on the OSM wiki. historic=marker would there for seem to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - historic=marker

I would use tourism=information, information=board, board_type=historic (or sth else more specific) for the examples on the wikipage: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/historic_marker cheers, Martin 2013/5/1 Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.com In the UK many of these

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - historic=marker

hy, my opinion: * CASA DE GOVERNOR PÍO PICO - former residence of the last Mexican governor of California. - a special persons? then: historic=memorial und memorial:type=plate * BLACK STAR CANYON INDIAN VILLAGE SITE - a building? then: information=board with board_type=historic * STAGECOACH INN -

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - historic=marker

Then we have historic=memorial und memorial:type=plate This is for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commemorative_plaque gruß reneman 2013/4/28 Eric Polk ericp...@ca.rr.com Is this identical to information=board with board_type=historic ?? They are similar in the information they present but

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - historic=marker

Hello. Is this identical to information=board with board_type=historic ?? information http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:information=boardhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:information%3Dboardund