I truly oversimplify as I say this, re-definitions of tags is problematic. It results in a long-term destruction of OSM's own data. In short, you believe your preconceived notions of "knowing better" or "knowing it all" (or something like that) is better than "what OSM already says." Now, I really am for "bettering" our map. Re-tagging? Whoa, slow down, careful. Look carefully. Gain knowledge from what has already happened here.
Re-defining historic is something that must be very, and I mean VERY carefully considered. OSM can't have too many re-definitions. It is like self-induced schizophrenia to act too much in a certain direction. I've lived through a large variety of "re-definitions" of things (parks and railways and bicycle routes and forests and woods and others) and re-definitions make it difficult to get along with each other. Stability in tagging really is good. We want to coin. We want to blend, though smartly. Historic? Yes, it has its world, it has its place, it has its tagging. This is an important discussion. Careful, everyone. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
