Out of boredom I tried to think up all the non-physical tags currently
in wide spread use:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:historic%3Devent#Why_even_obscure_tags_should_be_documented_if_they_are_likely_to_be_mapped.21
I doubt the list is exhaustive, but these are obviously important t
On 6 May 2011 04:15, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> e.g. there is a place in Rome which is said to be the locus where
> Julius Cesar was stabbed by Brutus. I find this interesting and I
I hadn't thought about assassinations, but all it took was an
assassination to kick start World War 1, yes there
2011/5/5 Pieren :
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:26 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
> Note that the OP is about historic=event, not battlefield. The edit war
> started because JohnSmith documented what you, Martin, suggested in a
> previous thread although that thread showed already a strong opposit
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:26 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Usually you will also find something on the ground, at least if you
> dig. Looking at the page for historic=event I can see that most people
> are arguing against historic=event and historic=battlefield because
> there is "nothing on the
2011/5/5 Simone Saviolo :
> 2011/5/5 John Smith
> Aren't we nitpicking? I've tagged remains of Roman cities whose "physical
> presence" is arguable, but nonetheless those are places of historical
> interest in that a Roman building or forum was there.
Usually you will also find something on the
2011/5/5 Andre Engels :
> Unless you are in New Zealand, you're unlikely to tag the same thing:
> It's being used for a Maori fortress, see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81_%28M%C4%81ori%29
IMHO the tag is not very well chosen. Besides that I agree with John
Smith (subtagging as a fortress)
On 6 May 2011 01:34, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> 2011/5/5 John Smith
>>
>> On 6 May 2011 01:09, Andre Engels wrote:
>> > Unless you are in New Zealand, you're unlikely to tag the same thing:
>> > It's being used for a Maori fortress, see
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81_%28M%C4%81ori%29
>>
2011/5/5 John Smith
> On 6 May 2011 01:09, Andre Engels wrote:
> > Unless you are in New Zealand, you're unlikely to tag the same thing:
> > It's being used for a Maori fortress, see
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81_%28M%C4%81ori%29
>
> That seems too specific, it should be a subset of
On 6 May 2011 01:09, Andre Engels wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:54 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
>>> Yes, they already do use it:
>>> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/historic%3Aevent#values
>>
>> No, I meant more like historic=pa
>>
>> I have no idea what it means, but there is 2100 uses...
>>
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:54 PM, John Smith wrote:
>> Yes, they already do use it:
>> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/historic%3Aevent#values
>
> No, I meant more like historic=pa
>
> I have no idea what it means, but there is 2100 uses...
>
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/historic#val
On 6 May 2011 00:59, Pieren wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:30 PM, John Smith
> wrote:
>>
>> In fact the only thing that will be accomplished by removing
>> references on the wiki is people will use multiple key/value pairs for
>> the same type of object because they can't see any other values
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:30 PM, John Smith wrote:
> In fact the only thing that will be accomplished by removing
> references on the wiki is people will use multiple key/value pairs for
> the same type of object because they can't see any other values that are
> already documented.
>
>
Between the
On 6 May 2011 00:50, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2011/5/5 John Smith :
>> Even if historic=event is removed from the wiki, and even if
>> historic=battlefield is removed I doubt it will stop people mapping
>> these locations, they are important to people, and people have already
>> shown that the
2011/5/5 John Smith :
> Even if historic=event is removed from the wiki, and even if
> historic=battlefield is removed I doubt it will stop people mapping
> these locations, they are important to people, and people have already
> shown that there are physical places that can be mapped.
Yes, they
Even if historic=event is removed from the wiki, and even if
historic=battlefield is removed I doubt it will stop people mapping
these locations, they are important to people, and people have already
shown that there are physical places that can be mapped.
In fact the only thing that will be accom
I think it is what it is, adding a subtag such as robbery or
battlefield etc but I already documented this on the wiki
On 5/3/11, Pieren wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 5:59 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
>> Personally I think historic=yes isn't a good idea, since you have to
>> do further digging to be
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 5:59 AM, John Smith wrote:
> Personally I think historic=yes isn't a good idea, since you have to
> do further digging to be able to classify things, where as stipulating
> why it's historic is of much better value.
>
>
"historic=event" needs also further digging...
Pieren
After digging further into this, and with all XAPI servers seemingly
unresponsive I looked toward tagwatch, the following are historic
values of curious note:
yes (5053)
pa (2138)
battlefield (331)
Altstraße (80)
heritage (76)
tumulus (60)
industrial (54)
coat_of_arms (54)
hollow_way (41)
road (3
On 3 May 2011 02:02, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> To reduce the danger of edit wars: what about _not_ defining the
> events explicitly "significant" (most of German Wikipedia disputes are
> about "relevance criteria" and I'd rather avoid similar discussions in
> OSM if possible). Of course we all
2011/5/2 Pieren :
> To stop a beginning of edit war
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:historic&action=history),
> I would like try something new and ask your feedback about the tag
> history=event wiki page.
>
> This tag is the result of a former discussion ab
20 matches
Mail list logo
