On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 6:22 AM Włodzimierz Bartczak < wlodzimierz.bartc...@openstreetmap.pl> wrote:
> That's right it's an oversight. I was a bit hasty. First of all, I wanted > to start a discussion. It would be worthwhile to sort out the use of this > key. Everyone is complaining about this proposal no one wants to put it in > order. Maybe we should do it together as a community. > I'm happy to help start that discussion. First, it needs to be clarified what problem the authors are trying to solve with this proposal. The proposal needs a clear, plainly-stated purpose and rationale to understand what is being voted on and why the status quo isn't good enough. Beyond that, there are several long-standing issues with the historic=* key. Over the years, there has been a debate over what counts as "historic". Some community members have suggested that features which are "merely old" are not necessarily historic and that perhaps a heritage organization or government's recognition is required to meet that threshold. Additionally, Sarah Hoffman has previously pointed out some structural issues with the use of historic as a top-level key sometimes and an ancillary key other times: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2022-November/066294.html I think, at a minimum, these three points should be addressed by the proposal authors before moving forward. They are certainly blockers for my support. Consider this an opportunity to dig into the issues with this key and work with the community to find where the consensus may lie. Do not rush to declare a vote until the issues raised by the community have been adequately addressed.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
