Talk:National Register of Historic Places
NRHP listings without a corresponding NPS website
There are a few places on the NRHP that don't seem to have a viable webpage (yet).
The Ishpeming Fire Tower, for example, does not seem to have an actual NRHP listing (as of 23-04-14), but there is a listing in the database if you search for it here.
Should these be added to the map yet? I'm not sure what the distinction is between listings that have a dedicated NRHP listing and those that do not. Some of the tags cannot be added to these non-dedicated items. Mecheye (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Locations listed as a Traditional Cultural Property
Certain NRHP sites are categorized as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP). One of which is the entirety of Isle Royale.
Do we have a tag for these kinds of places yet? Mecheye (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Not mapping sites where the address is restricted or not provided
At the time or writing this topic, the page states the following (emphasis mine):
A site is an area where a historical event occurred in the past. These often tend to be battlefields, archaeological sites, abandoned frontier camps, and paleontological digs. An important addendum to this category is that many archaeological/paleontological sites have their locations redacted on the list out of respect for indigenous religion/values as well as to prevent vandalism. Even if you do know where such a location is, it is best not to map it for these same reasons. Furthermore, it may even be illegal to do so depending on your jurisdiction.
If this is something that should be avoided for various legal purposes then a few thing should be done; Most importantly, the page should emphasize that any NRHP article that has the address restricted should not be added to the map.
It should be said that the locations for these cites are rather hard to redact. For example, all shipwrecks (or at least those around Isle Royale, MI) seem to have their addresses redacted, implying that they may not have been intended to be publicly accessible and as such should not be added to the map. However their coordinates are easily obtainable from Google or even Wikipedia, so unless a prospective diver checks the NRHP database first to make sure a wreck is publicly accessible or not they will probably obtain coordinates from Google or Wikipedia and visit it anyway. Wikipedia even states that, in the case of the wreck used as an example here, "Approximately fifty dives were made to Kamloops out of 1,062 dives made to wrecks in the Isle Royale National Park in 2009.". This restriction seems rather pointless.
That being said, if these kinds of thing ARE to remain unmapped for various legal reasons than we will have to enforce it in some way. Simply not adding them to the map won't work because at some point someone else is just going to add it. Instead, most ironically, the sites SHOULD be added to the map, but with a special tag that both indicates to any mapper whom inspects it that it the feature had been restricted by a certain entity and shouldn't be messed with, as well as prevents the feature from rendering on any OSM product.
A map note can also be used to ward off potential mappers, providing that the display of map notes while editing is enabled by default otherwise these notes can easily be missed. Mecheye (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)