>That could also be an option, but would that stop them rendering as current
>military features?
One could argue that, if they are no longer military featuers, they should not
be tagged as mililtary features. "historic=battlefield" does this and we are
probably not mapping any current / modern / non-historic battlefields, so ther
is not any real conflict. My problem with the whole key of "historic=" is
that some other objects, such as memorials, houses, dairies.... might be
historic, but might not. So I feel that we should tag the identity and main
characteristics of an object and then use "historic=yes" to indicate that it is
historic, but not current (If that is the case).
In the case of your historic military features, I would assume (I do not run a
renderer) that the renderer could (fairly easily ?) have one symbol for a
current object and another for an historic one (perhaps the same symbol, but in
a different colour?)
My point is that beíng historic is an attribute of an object that IS something
else (battlefield, memorial, house, dairy...). "historic" is an adjective, not
a noun.
Regards,Peter(PeterPan99)
On Wednesday, 12 October 2022 at 03:36:32 BST, Graeme Fitzpatrick
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 23:28, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
<[email protected]> wrote:
Maybe there would be value in deapproving historic=battlefield
I would love to be able to move the vast majority of military= to
historic=military, as they are no longer military installations.
Yes, they certainly were, but they aren't any more.
On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 at 00:07, Peter Neale via Tagging
<[email protected]> wrote:
Many ruins and memorials are "of historic interest" it is true, but that could
be tagged as a property ("historic=yes") of the object "man_made=<object_name>"
.
That could also be an option, but would that stop them rendering as current
military features?
Thanks
Graeme
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
