Since the tag man_made=threshing_floor has already been used 7 times ( https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=threshing_floor#values) you can create a page to document this, however, you would also need to mention that historic=threshing_floor is much more common (actually landuse=threshing_floor is also equally common), and it would probably be fair to create a historic=threshing_floor wiki page too, in that case.
If you want to suggest deprecating historic=threshing_floor and replacing it with man_made=threshing_floor, or otherwise changing existing common usage, you should make a proposal so that the community can discuss this. -- Joseph Eisenberg On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 2:53 PM António Madeira via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > So, given that most of those who commented this thread agreed that > threshing_floor should be in the man_made scheme, should I add it to the > wiki or create a Feature Proposal? > > > Às 19:27 de 06/11/2020, Paul Allen escreveu: > > On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 21:53, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 13:56 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com >> >: >> >>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 09:09, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> >>> 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). >>>> >>> >>> We have a way of tagging objects of exceptional historical value, it's >>> historic=*. Objects of unexceptional historical value, or of no >>> historical >>> value do not get tagged with historic=*. That's because historic is >>> not a synonym (in the real world or in tagging) for old, disused or >>> repurposed. >>> >> >> just that it is not what we are currently doing. >> >> That is not what some of us are currently doing. Others read the wiki > page > and tag accordingly. > > It occurs to me that some of the mis-tagging (as I see it) and some of the > discussions here may revolve around semantics as interpreted by > those who do not have English as a first language. There is a > difference between "historical" and "historic." > > Historians are concerned with historical data. Old data (about > populations, diseases or whatever) is historical data. The > assassination of a minor archduke, which seemed unimportant > at the time, quickly turned into a historic event. > > When somebody says that "historic" applies to everything that > historians do, that is incorrect. What historians mostly do is > look at historical data, some small fraction of which is > also historic. > > See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/historic-historical/ > for a better explanation. > > So historic=* really should only apply (as the wiki page states) to the > important > things of the past, not everything some random historian might happen > to be looking into. > > So the question is, do we accept that because some mappers have misused > the tag we should encourage that misuse or do we discourage it? > > -- > Paul > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing > listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
