Thank you, Joseph.
If no one opposes, I'll do just that.
Regards.
Às 16:43 de 12/11/2020, Joseph Eisenberg escreveu:
Since the tag man_made=threshing_floor has already been used 7 times
(https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=threshing_floor#values)
you can create a page to document this, however, you would also need
to mention that historic=threshing_floor is much more common (actually
landuse=threshing_floor is also equally common), and it would probably
be fair to create a historic=threshing_floor wiki page too, in that case.
If you want to suggest deprecating historic=threshing_floor and
replacing it with man_made=threshing_floor, or otherwise changing
existing common usage, you should make a proposal so that the
community can discuss this.
-- Joseph Eisenberg
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 2:53 PM António Madeira via Tagging
<tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
So, given that most of those who commented this thread agreed that
threshing_floor should be in the man_made scheme, should I add it
to the wiki or create a Feature Proposal?
Às 19:27 de 06/11/2020, Paul Allen escreveu:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 21:53, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdre...@gmail.com <mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 13:56 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen
<pla16...@gmail.com <mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>>:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 09:09, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdre...@gmail.com <mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
...
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.
That is not what some of us are currently doing. Others read the
wiki page
and tag accordingly.
It occurs to me that some of the mis-tagging (as I see it) and
some of the
discussions here may revolve around semantics as interpreted by
those who do not have English as a first language. There is a
difference between "historical" and "historic."
Historians are concerned with historical data. Old data (about
populations, diseases or whatever) is historical data. The
assassination of a minor archduke, which seemed unimportant
at the time, quickly turned into a historic event.
When somebody says that "historic" applies to everything that
historians do, that is incorrect. What historians mostly do is
look at historical data, some small fraction of which is
also historic.
See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/historic-historical/
for a better explanation.
So historic=* really should only apply (as the wiki page states)
to the important
things of the past, not everything some random historian might happen
to be looking into.
So the question is, do we accept that because some mappers have
misused
the tag we should encourage that misuse or do we discourage it?
--
Paul
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging