On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 09:09, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am Do., 5. Nov. 2020 um 13:59 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen <[email protected]>: > >> This may be a losing battle but I'll point out (once again) that historic >> is not >> a synonym for old, disused or repurposed. >> > > I agree, the word "historic" isn't always a synonymon for old , but the > things that we tag in "historic=*" are not necessarily "historic" in this > strict sense, they are objects of certain types that are generally seen to > fit well under the "historic" umbrella. > The wiki page gives guidelines as to what counts as historic. > We do not distinguish "truly historic" wayshrines from "ordinary" > wayshrines. > We currently do not make the distinction because we lack the tagging to do so. That is not an argument for not making a distinction. > > It is for objects that are of >> historic interest >> > > > in the past century the focus of historians has widened, today there are > many of them who are interested in the general conditions and circumstances > of the society, much more than looking only at single impactful events or > acting persons. > If we open the scope that widely then we include everything, which is not useful. Anything can become of historic interest, it depends how you integrate it > in the tale ;-) > Here are some of the criteria I use: 1) Is there a plaque? The plaque itself is historic=memorial, even if it was installed yesterday. The POI the plaque refers to may also count as historic=*. 2) Is the POI in guidebooks or tourist information as being where a significant historic event took place? 3) Many old fortifications, such as castles. Those aren't comprehensive rules. I might map something that doesn't fit them. I might not map something that does fit them. They're just the rules of thumb I apply. - not just old (how old is old, anyway?) but which are > in some way historically noteworthy. > > > A threshing floor where a >> general planned a decisive battle might be of historic interest, an >> old threshing floor where nothing ever happened but threshing probably >> isn't. >> > > it will be a testimony of historic agrarian production processes and > conditions, in any case. > As has since been revealed, these threshing floors are protected by a heritage organization for that reason. They aren't historic, though, not unless something significant happened there. The toilet in my house is around 15 years old and is a testimony to my bowel movements, but I do not consider it historic. The toilet Elvis died on, however... > 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). > We have a way of tagging objects of exceptional historical value, it's historic=*. Objects of unexceptional historical value, or of no historical value do not get tagged with historic=*. That's because historic is not a synonym (in the real world or in tagging) for old, disused or repurposed. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
