Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 13:56 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen <[email protected]>:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 09:09, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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. > right. But given that we have not done it so far through the historic key, the sustainable way is not by redefining the meaning of a key that is already used more than a million times. ... > > 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. just that it is not what we are currently doing. Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
