Proposed features/paleontological site

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
historic=paleontological_site
Status: Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by: Marcello
Tagging: historic=paleontological_site
Applies to: node,area
Definition: Area or paleontological site
Rendered as: Palaeontological site.svg
Drafted on: 2009-07-19
RFC start: 2009-07-19
Vote start: 2009-08-02
Vote end: 2009-08-17


Description

Giacimento paleontologico villaggio del pescatore duino.jpg

A paleontological site is a place (or group of physical sites) in which remains of ancient living forms is preserved. Area under the study of the forms of life existing in prehistoric times, as represented by the fossils of plants, animals, and other organisms investigated using the discipline of paleontology.

Tags

<k="historic" v="paleontological_site">

Icon

Paleontological site.png

Palaeontological site.svg

Applies to

Node Node Area Area


Link

Proposed features http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features#Proposed_Features_-_Historic

Tag: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic=paleontological_site

Proposal-RFC- historic=paleontological_site http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-July/038714.html

Voting - historic=paleontological_site http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-August/039584.html

Voting

Type "{{vote|yes/no}} --~~~~" to approve/oppose this proposal and sign with your user name & date.

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Marcello 14:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --fradeve11 15:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Vezzo 13:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Nighto 16:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --niubii 09:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Dieterdreist but would prefer natural=palaeontological_site or geological=palaeontological_site (BE not AE) 14:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Seufer wolle 15:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --rurseekatze 15:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Divjo 18:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Luccass 16:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. (paleontological sites are way older then historic sites, better belongs to natural or a future group of geologic keys)----Mikrokosmonaut 16:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Alessioz 12:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't like this proposal. same as Mikrokosmonaut. natural=paleontological_site would make more sens as I got the feeling that "historic" has something to do with humans. -- Pieren 12:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Needs more explanation as to what this is, and where it would be used. --SpeedEvil 14:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Socks 14:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Same reason as Mikrokosmonaut and Pieren, it should be a natural=paleontological_site tag (and also ok with Nop, quite strange to have no description for a vote...) --Nimnael 14:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I am a wombat --Richard 14:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Needs a description, needs to explain where it should be used, needs to use natural=* instead since these things are properly Older Than History. --achadwick 14:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Phono 15:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Hanska 17:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Onovy 17:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --PerroVerd 18:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. -- Should be natural=* Jono 16:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. The proposal per se is fine, but natural or geological as key would be more appropriate. Note also that the meaning of history in the WP article is "anything in the past", but this is not the meaning of our key historic, as can be seen from tagwatch and the values listed on its description page. --Schuetzm 18:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. -- history is plain wrong. Ipofanes 18:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. historic doesn't mean pre-cambrium, this should rather be natural (I will aprove a simple rewrite) --Skippern 09:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

new proposal

Thank you all for partecipate on this Vote/Discussion :-) so ... maybe is better one of this this 2 tag:
1) natural=palaeontological_site http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/palaeontological_site
2) geological=palaeontological_site http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/geological=palaeontological_site
like suggest --Dieterdreist --Mikrokosmonaut --Schuetzm geological as key would be more appropriate.