On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 22:37, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 7. Sep 2020, at 23:23, Paul Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > To say that something is historic means that it is important or > significant > > in history. > > importance and significance are quite relative and I have the impression > you are imagining the bar much higher than what we usually apply for > historic. > I'm trying to avoid people using historic as a synonym for "old" or for "disused." There's more to it than that. Or should be. Take two, adjacent terraced houses, identical in appearance because they were constructed at the same time by the same builder to the same plans. One has a plaque saying it is the birthplace of some important figure. The plaque is a historic memorial, the house it is attached to is just a house (as is the house next door). > An anchor or cannon which have nothing special about them and > > are not commemorating something of historical significance are just > > artwork. > > a cannon which is still in the context where it was once used can always > be seen as historic, Yes. But the original poster was talking about anchors. Anchors that were not attached to ships, or the historical object would be the ship itself. > it doesn’t need to be important or of exceptional significance (e.g. by > having a plaque attached, being dedicated to something/someone, having > appeared in a historic text, having belonged to someone famous/powerful, > etc.). > For a cannon, MAYBE. Often not. Like the anonymous cannons on the lawns of US courthouses that could have come from anywhere. Or be modern reproductions. "History" means that it has been recorded in writing. That's why the time before writing was invented is known as "pre-history." If there is no written record of its provenance and significance then it is NOT historic, just old. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
