Am Do., 5. Nov. 2020 um 13:59 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com>:
> This may be a losing battle but I'll point out (once again) that historic > is not > a synonym for old, disused or repurposed. > I agree, the word "historic" isn't always a synonymon for old , but the things that we tag in "historic=*" are not necessarily "historic" in this strict sense, they are objects of certain types that are generally seen to fit well under the "historic" umbrella. We do not distinguish "truly historic" wayshrines from "ordinary" wayshrines. And it is a question of interpretation whether you consider an "ordinary" wayshrine to be historic in the sense you are using it. > It is for objects that are of > historic interest > in the past century the focus of historians has widened, today there are many of them who are interested in the general conditions and circumstances of the society, much more than looking only at single impactful events or acting persons. Anything can become of historic interest, it depends how you integrate it in the tale ;-) - not just old (how old is old, anyway?) but which are > in some way historically noteworthy. > again, I understand what you are after, and I reject that this is a requirement for things that are tagged with historic=* > A threshing floor where a > general planned a decisive battle might be of historic interest, an > old threshing floor where nothing ever happened but threshing probably > isn't. > it will be a testimony of historic agrarian production processes and conditions, in any case. To me it doesn't make sense to draw a line, dividing the same objects having more or less historic value. If there is something to distinguish at all, my suggestion would be to add a qualifier to those objects of exceptional historical value (if this is verifiable). Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
