sent from a phone
> On 4 Nov 2022, at 13:17, Marc_marc <marc_m...@mailo.com> wrote: > > our "sister" project (wikipedia) has no problem defining what is an anecdote > and what is "relevance from a historic viewpoint", > I don't see why we should have any issue doing it. Mappers are working fundamentally different from wikipedia authors, because they are recording observations, first hand study, while wikipedia work means working with sources. Original research is explicitly frowned upon in wikipedia while it is at the basis of mapping. We do not have relevance criteria as a hurdle for inclusion of things, we only require them to exist. I do not say relevance does not exist, but it is less important for our mapping. We are creating “categories” of things by applying tags, and I do not believe it would be helpful to have different main categories for the same thing, depending on its historic relevance, hence I do not believe redefining the “historic” key in this direction would be helpful for the project. Cheers Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
