My apologies, wrong link! The corner guard stone is here: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/USu9htX8nw95mW77kSeZ7Q
Volker On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 23:40, Alan Mackie <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 17:03, Volker Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> My gard stone example on a building corne >> <https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/YNhbgcyBHpYAhqatX0CwSF>is also useful >> for this part of the discussion. I know the place well and I know the local >> amateur history expert, and we talked about this specific stone, and also >> asked about its historic value. >> > I'm sorry, I'm having trouble spotting it at that link, is it by the gate? > >> It is anywhere between 100 and a couple of hundred years old. It is on a >> building the walls of which may have many hundreds of years. So it's >> historical and as it's the only guard stone in that part of the city, it's >> most likely also historic, not because in itself it is historic, but it's a >> historical marker, as we are not good at keeping historic buildings of >> minor importance. The next building down the road, (which BTW may well be >> of Roman origin as it used to lead straight to the historic city center of >> Roman Patavium) was a tavern with several hundred years of confirmed >> history, but was torn down about ten years ago to make place for a new >> private house. So my personal opinion is that it is historic, even though >> most likely 99% of the locals have never noticed it. >> >> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 15:15, Paul Allen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:56, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I am not saying that these stones should or not get a historic tag, but >>>> surely it isn’t an argument that one of the OpenStreetMap based maps >>>> highlights things based on a wildcard selection. >>>> >>> >>> Not an argument, merely a piece of evidence to consider. >>> >>> >>>> If this tag would pose a problem for their rendering I am sure they >>>> would adjust the selection rules. >>>> >>> >>> Or perhaps we should not force them to adjust their selection rules by >>> abusing >>> "historic" to mean "old." We have start_date=* to specify that things >>> are old. >>> >>>> >>>> Regarding “historic means historic as in the battle of Waterloo or the >>>> pyramids of Gizeh”, we have seen from previous discussion that this was a >>>> minority opinion. >>>> >>> >>> An explanation, by one person, of what the wiki page says and the >>> distinction >>> between "historic" and "historical." Those do not mean the same thinhg, >>> however much you wish them to. >>> >>> On the one hand we have the wiki page, the distinction between >>> "historic" and "historical" and a map with the sole purpose of >>> rendering historic, rather than historical, objects. On the other >>> hand we have people who insist that "historic" means "historical." >>> >>> Many people see historic as a keyword for objects that typically could >>>> be seen as historic, but then includes any objects of the class, without >>>> further differentiating them by “historic value”. >>>> >>> >>> Many people do not read the wiki page. Many people do not understand >>> the distinction between "historic" and "historical." >>> >>>> >>>> We do not have different tags for truly historic wayside shrines or >>>> crosses and others. How many charcoal piles do you expect to be of >>>> exceptional historic value? >>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic#values >>>> >>> >>> I would expect a handful, at most, not the tens of thousands that have >>> been >>> mapped. Those SHOULD have been mapped with a lifecycle prefix. But >>> people who don't understand the difference between "historic" and >>> "historical" and don't read the wiki misuse historic=* then document it. >>> >>>> >>>> For guard stones I could imagine using the man_made key as well, but >>>> historic would seem to work because most of these are giving testimony of >>>> former times. >>>> >>> >>> "Historic" does not mean "historical." Those stones are historical but >>> they are not historic. If you want to emphasise that they are old, >>> start_date=* is the way to go. >>> >>> -- >>> Paul >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
