Proposed features/unesco world heritage
Please note: this proposal is quite old and never was put to an approval state. The issues raised in the discussion (not all protected features are historic, the proposed way doesn't allow to be added to an object which already has a historic-tag) are better dealt with in the more recent proposal: Proposed_features/heritage.
Unesco World Heritage (UWH) is interesting for everyone.
I'm on the way to ask the Unesco World Heritage Center for allowance to use the name and the emblem.
Tags applied to nodes and areas.
historic=unesco_world_heritage whc:id=268 whc:criteria=2;4 whc:inscription_date=1983
id can be found here: e.g.: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/268
criteria can be found here: http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/
UWH object should be rendered at close zoom levels.
Image should be defined. --> perhaps the World Heritage Center (whc) logo?
our opinion here I totally agree UWH sites is something that should be on the maps. Tomas
- Would not like "historic"="unesco_world_heritage". How to tag a historic castle wich is in the uwh list? perhabs we need another tag for this, perhabs: protected_by=unesco_world_heritage? Sven Anders 10:10, 11 October 2007 (BST)
- I agree, also many (most?) World Heritage sites are not historic, cf Cradle Mountain, Tasmania. How about unesco_world_heritage=yes ?
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_Mountain-Lake_St_Clair_National_Park MikeCollinson 20:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Mike, sites could be historic, geographic or a whole city. I'd like to use the tag, now I've tagged with a mere amenity=World Heritage waiting for an official tag.
Ale_zena_IT 5 april 2008
- I would also choose something like unesco_world_heritage=yes its a more flexible version and can be used for all kinds of unesco heritages. --Patzi 01:34, 10 April 2008 (BST)
- I think there are more arguments for using it as an own tag like unesco_world_heritage=yes so it can be tagged in combination with other tags ... any concerns? if not change it? --Patzi 16:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- I would agree with the unesco_world_heritage=yes tag plus the reference tags above. Looking on the WHC website I note they give an precise lat/log, can we webscrape these for sites which are missing? --Mungewell 17:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, the additional tags ref, inscripton_date should be included as far as known. Do we want to start voting with this new combination, or do we need more time? --Patzi 18:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
IMO we need something that also allows to enter the classification according to other organizations than the UNESCO - usually the national organizations have their own scheme. E.g. a tag 'memorial_classification' that lists how the memorial is classified by international/national organizations. Namespaces could be used to namethe organization. E.g. memorial_classification:unesco=world_heritage. --Grungelborz 12:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Not always a memorial ;-) What about heritage=uwh,other_stuff + ref:uwh=N + uwh:criteria=ii,iv + uwh:inscription_date=1983 when available. I think better to keep common shemes : ref:NN for the ref (id is not very used in OSM, ref:NN is a common practice), and uwh rather than whc for it is the value in the heritage tag.
FrViPofm 08:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)