On 6 May 2011 01:34, Simone Saviolo <[email protected]> wrote: > 2011/5/5 John Smith <[email protected]> >> >> On 6 May 2011 01:09, Andre Engels <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Unless you are in New Zealand, you're unlikely to tag the same thing: >> > It's being used for a Maori fortress, see >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81_%28M%C4%81ori%29 >> >> That seems too specific, it should be a subset of historic=fort, and >> even then how many of these still actually have some kind of physical >> presence, which is the argument against tagging historically >> significant events. > > Aren't we nitpicking? I've tagged remains of Roman cities whose "physical > presence" is arguable, but nonetheless those are places of historical > interest in that a Roman building or forum was there. I agree it'd be moot > to map Troy based on the supposed position, but for well-documented POIs we > shouldn't be discussing whether a fort is still a fort. After all, most > European castles aren't actually used as castles anymore.
I was just pointing out the extent of the argument against historic=event, since many historically significant places won't exist any more, but that doesn't detract from their importance, and you summed up my argument about having a place to tag, I agree 100% that only places that are known specifically should be mapped. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
