Proposed features/historic:civilization

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
historic:civilization
Status: Approved (active)
Proposed by: dieterdreist
Tagging: historic:civilization, historic:period, historic:era=*
Applies to: node,way,area
Definition: to mark the civilization that created a feature
Rendered as: *
Drafted on:
Proposed on: *
RFC start: 2011-01-12
Vote start: 2011-01-21
Vote end: 2011-02-07

Summary

This is a tag to describe roughly, which civilization (or ancient culture) has built a feature or is somehow else connected to it. The tag is mainly intended for historical features as a subtag to add further detail.

Extensions

There will likely be another subtag historic:period=* to describe a narrower period according to historic classification, see values below for usage. This will still leave room for yet another subtag historic:era=* e.g. named after a regent, a family or similar, if needed. This allows to tag a suitable detail level, while the approximative tag historic:civilization=* can be easily applied without special knowledge.

Tags

<k="historic:civilization" v=defined list>
<k="historic:period" v=defined list>
<k="historic:era" v=defined list>

Proposed values

This is an initial set of proposed values. In some cases the dates might be disputed. Please be also aware that this is (/should be) based on scientific classification (i.e. an interpretation) and might be disputed or due to change along with scientific progress. If you are not sure how to exactly classify a feature, don't add the detailed tags but add only what you are sure about.

China

to be amended

Ancient China

Imperial China


Egypt

Ancient Egypt

Greek Egypt

Roman and Byzantine Egypt

Greece

Greek Bronze Age

Ancient Greece

Persia

to be added. If you are familiar with this topic feel free to add a classification

Rome


Other cultures

Examples

For example this could be attached to an roman excavation site:

historic:civilization=ancient_roman

Voting

Voting has ended. 16 votes approved, 8 votes opposed -> feature is approved


  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Dieterdreist 11:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Al3xius 11:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Pavelo 11:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Lucadelu 12:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Sky One 13:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Leosaeba 13:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Binary Alchemy 15:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --fradeve11 16:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Johan Jönsson 18:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --niubii 19:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --ZMWandelaar 16:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Surly 20:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. -- The next edit-war will definitely come on this issue as there are many disputed

archaeological sites. Is the Hagia Sophia a Byzantine, Greek, Muslim or Turkish site? Is the Temple Mount in Jerusalem a Jewish, Muslim or Roman site? FK270673 23:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you should think in finer grains, if there is problems like that: identify the parts that go back to a certain civilization and period and tag them separately. I don't want to omit these data for all the majority of places that are easy to map just because there might be some few disputed places. -- Dieterdreist 11:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. -- and you often find places where more then one civilization has settled over the years. Please allow more then one civilization and fill in some time-tag. Skyper 03:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this tag might not be very suitable for some settlements but it is suitable for features. Distinct features (ruins, buildings, sculptures, ...) will most likely be possible to be associated with a certain civilization (and often even more precisely to a precise construction date). -- Dieterdreist 12:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
There are many ruins on ruins and then a building which was build by more than one civilization. Please use a tagging-scheme which allows more than one civilization.--Skyper 14:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
ruins on ruins are not a problem, you simply map them separately (using layers). Usually we don't map underground things anyway, because they are hard to verify on the ground. I never heard of a building built by more than one civilization, do you have an example? -- Dieterdreist 12:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- User:cgu66 14:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. -- Proposed tagging does not support the specification of time periods. That not more then one tag for an object can be used, make this even worse. --Fabi2 22:24, 25 January 2011(UTC)
I don't understand you. This does specify time periods. I also think you miss the point, if you expect a proposal to solve every problem (like the temporal one, which occurs in many ways in OSM and is not specific to this tag) in one rush. This is about introducing the simple concept of civilizations / cultures. I agree that is is rough (so it is simple for every mapper to use and can be refined with additional tags by the experts). If you want to combine it with the temporal aspect you are free to do this and to extend the proposed scheme. -- Dieterdreist 12:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Seawolff 22:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal.-- aeonesa
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Foxxi59 17:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. -- Because it seems too much subjective to me. I'd rather use an iso standard for time intervals like B2100/B0221 for ancient chinese, etc. cf. ISO. Furthermore it is inter-cultural and would allow queries throughout the world. Damouns 08:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
would allow queries like what? I am less interested in the time then in the culture. You can't compare B2100/B0221 China to B2100/B0221 Maya, so I think this is pointless. This is a tag to describe the culture and period of a culture. If you are interested in objects from a certain timespan you can simply recreate these timespans from the documented periods. The division of cultures in periods is not subjective but scientifically approved. If we encounter disputed structuring, we can talk about this, but for rough structures like the proposed there should not be too much doubt.--Dieterdreist 11:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal.-- I think this information is better placed in an external database Zartbitter 10:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
interesting idea. How would you connect this external database to OSM? If I tag a roman temple, how would I attach the OSM-geometry to my database? What if I started with a node and someone made a polygon out of it? I agree that the detailed story of buildings is better kept in another medium, but simple information like: is this temple greek or roman? should already be in OSM. --Dieterdreist 11:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal.-- same think as already written above me, time interval need to be standard and allow more than one civilization. or explain better how to use your tags in different situation.b166er 11:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that "standardized"-time information has no benefit in this context. Every civilization has it's own history with scientifically (mostly undisputed) time periods, that are elaborated according to research and can be found in literature as well as e.g. in the wikipedia (for simple structures like the proposed). -- Dieterdreist 11:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Mstriewe 18:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Esperanza 16:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)