It would be good to have consistency in the start_date value. Taginfo reports 18313 usages (2814 distinct), of which these are examples of values other than simple 4-digit years[1]:
1986-08-21 29/09/2006 05/01/2005 2002-12-31 03/12/2004 2001-07-12 20101012 Nov␣2007 1.1.2012 1966␣restauriert 0200-12-29 0085-12-12 4.12.10 Spring␣2010 -2000 08.2010 18.␣jahrh. 0008-09-16 2009-09-10␣09:00:00␣+0200 1966-08-XX 19th␣century February␣2000 2007-XX-XX 1700-talet 1960s c.␣1903 1758;␣1909 12.␣April␣2008 1869-19?? Early␣18th␣century 1984;1988;1986;1985;1989;1989;1986 Summer␣of␣2009 13/07/2006;␣05/01/2005 circa␣1820 5/1923␣-␣10/1926 623AD Late␣11th␣to␣early␣12th␣century -3 <1878 1959-09-01;1960-08-19;1960-08-31;2006-10-26 XVème 3100␣BC ... and my favourite: octobre So it's clear there's a demand for: exact dates; general approximations; approximations to the month, season, century; before <date> and after <date>; early <period> and late <period>, maybe also mid <period>; date ranges; multiple values; BC and AD. We can probably ignore: exact times. They should go in their own time tags, if anyone wants them. In my own historic photo tagging I have found numerous captions that date pictures with varying degrees of precision using similar non-standard means. I then turn these into a date tag, trying to capture as much of that vague richness as possible. I propose something similar for OSM, which I have outlined here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:start_date I'm also posting about this proposal to the Tagging list, where follow-ups should probably go (if not the Discussion page on the wiki). - L [1] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/start_date On 10 Nov 2010, at 14:07, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote: > Ed Avis <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> As I said ... adding the dates on which the new roads appeared around the >>> Olypmic village, or a new motorway spur or residential road was opened >>> will be history in 100 years time but costs nothing to add today? >> >> When something exists today, it would be nice to add the date it was >> constructed. start_date would not be my ideal tag name, but it works. >> >> However I don't think it makes as much sense to add an object that doesn't >> exist today. > > I'm on the same "philosophy", i try to put start_date (when i know the > data) every time it's possible. Tag name is not very important. Lot of > discussion and "fight" occured around tagname, but consistency is more > important, when a tag existe for a feature it was not a good idea trying > to change it with a new tag. > > Adding old object has no sense in the current OSM project, as it has > beeen explain lot of tools used OSM and it would require to update all > tools and that's impossible. > > It would be a nice feature for historical purpuse and perhaps lot of > people would contribute but i thing it would be better to made this > another project that could use OSM has background map and also some OSM > softwares and data. > It would be a nice "brother" project and would be happy to contribute. > > -- > Pierre-Alain Dorange > OSM experiences : <http://www.leretourdelautruche.com/map/> > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
