Template talk:Map Features:historic

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Constructive suggestion

Discussion moved to Talk:Key:historic#Suggested_introduction

Edit war on historic=event

Come on guys, can we open a constructive discussion on the Talk:Tag:historic=event page instead of entering an edit war about the historic=event tag ? sletuffe 15:44, 29 April 2011 (BST)

historic=house not listed

re https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:historic&curid=11270&diff=2039187&oldid=2039177

Maybe switching to list/table and removing taglist template would be a good idea? It would also allow to remove rendering column that is not really needed here and is misleading, as it is rendering in just one specific style Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

There are 3 separate issues:
1) Whether historic=house should be included. I don't think so. It's a bogus tag that is barely in use (~3000 historic=house vs. 38 million building=house), and it never had a proposal. If it had a proposal, it would be voted down, because it is useless. Building=house and historic=yes can be combined, so historic=house does not provide any additional information that justifies the new tag. And people should be more specific about the historic value anyway, i.e what makes the house historic? Probably an early start_year=*, or a famous person who lived there (but in that case there is usually a historic=memorial + memorial=plaque, so the information can go to that feature instead of the building).
2) To what degree the table should be autogenerated.
3) Whether the rendering column should be included. I don't like the way the Carto style has come to dominate OSM tagging and the wiki, but given that the Carto rendering is shown everywhere in the wiki, there may be a point in leaving it here as well for consistency.
--Fkv (talk) 11:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it does not seem common enough to be added to this page. This list of "Map features" is supposed to be a relatively compact, curated list of the most common tags which are the "de facto" way to map a certain feature for most mappers: usually such tags are supported by Editor applications and perhaps 1 or more rendering applications or other database users. Tags that have been approved via the Proposal process are also added. The tag historic=house is not very common and alternatives, mentioned above, of using building=house plus start_date=* or mapping the historic plaque are more precise. --Jeisenbe (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Hold up, before we nix it, let's compare apples to apples. You can't compare historic houses to all houses, that doesn't make sense. You have to compare historic=house to building=house + historic=yes. Here's what I got on that comparison in overpass:
building=house + historic=yes
[out:json];
(node["building"="house"]["historic"="yes"];
  way["building"="house"]["historic"="yes"];
  rel["building"="house"]["historic"="yes"];);
out count;

Result:
   "nodes": "14",
   "ways": "1714",
   "relations": "28",
   "total": "1756"
historic=house
[out:json];
(node["historic"="house"];
  way["historic"="house"];
  rel["historic"="house"];);

Result:
   "nodes": "653",
   "ways": "2412",
   "relations": "68",
   "total": "3133"
Thus, 64% of the time, mappers have chosen historic=house out of the two options. I agree that this is not an overwhelming difference that automatically justifies is as the standard usage, and perhaps this is a good candidate for the proposal process. Does it make sense to separate the Map_Features historic template from the page at historic=*? That way Map Features can stay more carefully curated, but the wiki page might reflect additional usages that have come about organically?
EDIT: to be clear, I agree that building=house + historic=yes should be the correct tagging, that way all houses have a common tag. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Also consider other similar tags and combinations such as historic=manor (used 6000 times), tourism=yes/attraciton (424 times: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/YpW), historic=building (https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/YpV - 2333 uses), and other values of historic: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=house#combinations - search for combination with "historic", used >10,000 time and <5000 are =house, =building, or =yes. --Jeisenbe (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Addition of historic=stone, historic=bomb_crater and historic=charcoal_pile

Three values were just added to this list: stone, bomb_crater and charcoal_pile.

I agree. In the worst case, mappers may fall back to natural=stone + historic=yes. --Fkv (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
It's me who invented that tag and created the feature page. We may extend the description, but come on, you don't know what a bomb crater is? Are you serious? --Fkv (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I can guess that if there is a large depression in the ground created by an aerial bomb which was dropped from a plane, then that qualifies. But what about an explosion created by an shallow underground nuclear test? Or a missle impact? What about an explosion crater which was created due to an industrial accident? Do those count as "bombs?" This should be clarified. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion_crater too. --Jeisenbe (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I assume that nukes and missiles count as bombs, whereas industrial accidents don't. But I have no experience with any of these. This question needs to be answered by those who do, in particular with those who map them. As for now, we can only document things that we know. I know how bomb craters look like that were created by bombs dropped by airplaines in WW2. --Fkv (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Those who did the import apparently weren't aware of man_made=kiln + product=charcoal, and I doubt that they've ever seen a charcoal pile. As far as I know, all existing charcoal piles are reconstructions, thus not historic. --Fkv (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Addition of historic=vehicle

The tag historic=vehicle was just added to this list. I believe this is incorrect: the Map Features page, which includes this section, is meant to be a curated, short list of well-established tags. But the tag historic=vehicle has only been used about 100 times, and several similar tags are more common: historic=tank, historic=locomotive, historic=railway_car. Also there are slightly less common alternatives which are more specific: historic=car, historic=tractor, historic=tram, etc. - I believe this tag should not be added to this page unless it is approved via the Proposal process, or after it becomes much more popular and well-established in the future. --Jeisenbe (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Curiously, the picture on the brand-new historic=vehicle is actually a tank, better represented by the slightly more common historic=tank. We should not be promoting historic=vehicle on map features due to low usage and the availability of alternatives. ZeLonewolf (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

+1 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree we should not be promoting questionable tags anywhere on the wiki. However, the "low usage and the availability of alternatives" description is a bit misleading: the examples above are far less common, even when combined (26 cars, 15 tractors, and 27 trams vs 115 vehicles as of now). Two of the more popular entries (historic=locomotive and historic=railway_car) are railway-based vehicles, which were suggested by Jeisenbe to be distinct from historic=vehicle. Besides, there are other reasons to prefer historic=vehicle over more specific tags (see the discussion page for details).
Also, what are the criteria for "well-established"? There are items on this list which are even less common (or just marginally more frequent), such as historic=highwater_mark, historic=gallows, and historic=optical_telegraph. Besides, the majority of entries on the list were not approved via the proposal process and have either in use or de facto status.
Re: historic=highwater_mark, historic=gallows, and historic=optical_telegraph - personally, I would prefer to remove all of these. They are quite rare tags and have never become common, so they don't need to be listed on the main "Map Features" page. If someone wants to make second list of "other rare documented values" for historic=*, then they could go there. --Jeisenbe (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
historic=highwater_mark should definitely go, as there is also a historic=flood_mark which says the same thing, and that should properly go through the proposal process to decide which tag to use. There are tons of these all over the world that could potentially be mapped but the tagging is not ready for prime time. I am less sure about historic=gallows; although it is rare in the database, it is also rare in the world. But, if we are being consistent about excluding low-usage and non-approved tags from a curated space, both it and historic=optical_telegraph should probably be struck from the list. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the image - initially, the picture used for historic=vehicle was not of a tank but an APC (which is both visually distinct and does not fall under the definition used on the historic=tank page, which is why APC should be tagged as historic=vehicle). However, following the ZeLonewolf's advice, it was later changed to a more representative image of a half-track vehicle to eliminate the confusion.--Ungoose (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Switch back to template scheme (from taglists)

So far i see User:Javiersanp did change the scheme from templates to taglists in 2018 by edit: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:historic&diff=1586303&oldid=1585408
I think this is no good idea, if at the same time the other language page (here in this case all except of HR) still use the template scheme. See tutorial: Taginfo/Taglists/Wiki_project#How-to (It creates confusion, because you have to edit on two en-page locations (main & template page), and the sync on template page will then be often forgotten)
So there are seems two options now, completely switch to taglists or back to templates?
Because of many disadvantages using the taglists scheme i would propose to switch back to template scheme (for historic=*). --MalgiK (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The other languages can be switched to taglists too, if desired. But I understand that there are disadvantages to that approach too: it requires each tag to be documented in each language with a specific page, so that the description field in taginfo is available. I'm not certain what the best choice is. --Jeisenbe (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Lets remove count column

Resolved

It provides no critical info and makes harder to read this on monitors which are not superwide. Compare https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:memorial Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I am in favour of removing the count column. --501ghost (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Removed. maro21 19:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Map_Features:historic&oldid=2686344"