IMHO "historic" should not be a primary key at all. Many ruins and memorials
are "of historic interest" it is true, but that could be tagged as a property
("historic=yes") of the object "man_made=<object_name>" .
What about a modern memorial? Can that be "of historic interest", if it is
only 2 years old? it might still be of interest in 100 years time, but it
might be forgotten by then.
What about a house? Mine (built in 2000) is almost certainly NOT "of historic
interest", but what about older houses, still occupied as residences, which
were previously occupied by some famous person? They probably ARE "of historic
initerest", but they are still a "building=house".
However, I fear that the (mis) use of "historic=" is so endemic that I am
<rude> pi**ing into the wind </rude> if I try to change it.
Regards,Peter
(PeterPan99)
On Tuesday, 11 October 2022 at 14:43:09 BST, Marc_marc
<marc_m...@mailo.com> wrote:
Le 11.10.22 à 15:25, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit :
> I see no value in approving de facto key.
>
> Maybe there would be value in deapproving historic=battlefield
>
> Also, is "are of historic interest" mismatches how
> historic=wayside_shrine
> historic=memorial
> many historic=wayside_cross
> are used.
so the value to approved a facto key is "don't approve
those problematic keys"
but imho a memorial "are of historic interest" for sure !
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
