|Proposal status:||Rejected (inactive)|
|Proposed by:||Martianfreeloader & B-unicycling & Cristoffs|
|Definition:||Approve the key historic=*|
It is proposed to approve historic=*.
The key historic=* is in widespread use (1.5 million objects). It is currently documented as having de facto status.
Interestingly, some values are already approved without the key itself being approved:
Many more values of historic=* are documented:
This key can be used on every observable feature that has a historical meaning, regardless of
- historical importance. For example, inclusion in an authoritative listing of historic sites, or a special protected status is not a requirement.
- size, and in particular the degree to which it influences the visible landscape.
- interest to the OSM community.
Common examples are:
- Historical transport infrastructure, such as roman roads or disused railway tracks
- Historical sites of large-scale mineral extraction
Usage in non-historic features
- Wayside shrines and wayside_crosses are tagged historic=wayside_shrine and historic=wayside_cross, even if they are modern.
- Memorials are tagged historic=memorial, even if they are modern (presumably every memorial is referring to history in some sense).
When not to use
The tag historic=* is used on objects that relate to human history.
- For features which no longer exist, see lifecycle prefix and Comparison of life cycle concepts.
- Geological features are described using geological=*.
- Palaeontological sites (places containing the remains of ancient life-forms) are also described using geological=*.
- Natural heritage or parts thereof are tagged with heritage=*, or landuse=*.
- Information boards on historical topics are tagged tourism=information + information=board + board_type=history.
- Museums that cover history are tagged tourism=museum + exhibit=history.
However, if the feature is also a cultural heritage or has other historic importance, historic=* can be used alongside other tags.
How to map
Differs depending on value.
- 2022-10-11: Exclude values from the proposal; only propose the key itself.
- 2022-11-03: First round of votes started.
- 2022-11-03: Definitely exclude values from the proposal; only propose the key itself.
- 2022-11-03: First round of votes closed because of changes to proposal page.
- 2022-11-16: Voting start date added to infobox.
Voting 1 (closed!)
These votes must be rendered invalid, because changes were made to the proposal page after the vote started, sorry.
Place your vote below, at the end of the list. -->
- I approve this proposal. --B-unicycling (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. This proposal is insufficiently developed. It's not clear what exactly we're proposing, and the proposal does not state a clear definition for historic=*, nor does it set any expectation for what to do with tags in that key that don't meet the unspecified definition. I don't support creating proposals just for the sake of slapping an approved marker in the wiki, it needs to come with a well-thought-out rationale and supporting documentation. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Voted after first vote was closed and proposal page set back to Proposed
- I oppose this proposal. No idea what voting on a key should mean, we are usually voting on tags and tags are k/v pairs. A key cannot be approved, unless it is a property. What does if imply if this proposal passes? Seems safer to keep the status quo IMHO, I don’t see a need for approving the historic key. —Dieterdreist (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Jrachi (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. "Historical transport infrastructure, such as roman roads or disused railway tracks" - disused railway tracks are in general not tagged with historic=* as far as I know. Is this proposal trying to change this? Also, modern wayside crosses are also tagged as historic=wayside_cross --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Re-voting. Please vote or speak in the discussion.
- I approve this proposal. Cristoffs (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --AlexRiabtsev (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. B-unicycling (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --darkonus (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Marek-M (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Kocio (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Cz ja (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. It is quite unclear what is the actual intent here? I've opened a section in talk page as it would be quite unwieldy to mention all of the problems here (also, see unaddressed concerns from previous round of votes!) --mnalis (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. The comments in my previous "no" vote have not been addressed. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I am happy with confirming the definition of historic=* as given here. —Dieterdreist (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Opposing for now for the reasons stated in Talk:Proposed features/Historic#intention of this proposal? I would reconsider my opposition if this proposal turns out to be merely an affirmation of a seemingly uncontroversial definition of "historic feature", per Dieterdreist's interpretation, but in that case I would subtly gesture in the direction of just editing Key:historic and calling it a day. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 02:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. @Cristoffs: - note that in case of starting a new vote it is necessary to notify tagging mailing list as described at Proposal process#Voting and it would be useful to solve issues pointed out in previous vote, including ones that resulted in vote being stopped. For me biggest are (a) lack of rationale for marking key as approved (b) claim that old railway lines are tagged with historic=* in "Historical transport infrastructure, such as roman roads or disused railway tracks" - disused railway tracks are in general not tagged with historic=* as far as I know. Is this proposal trying to change this? (c) it is not fully clear what this proposal is actually trying to achieve here. Note that it is perfectly fine to make proposal and getting tags such as man_made=carpet_hanger being approved without key man_made=* being approved. The same applies for historic key. --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. This proposal lacks structure. It does not address or even mention the issues with historic key that were raised during the discussion. I don't understand why disused railways are mentioned. --Lonvia (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Same as Mateusz Konieczny. -- Something B (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --JassKurn (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I approve formally making the historic=* approved. Has nothing to do with the values used with the key. Warin61 (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. SimonPoole (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. It's not clear what this is intended to do. Pnorman (talk) 08:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Unclear what intention is, and why this hasn't been clarified in round two. Why mention disused railways, this has also been mentioned in round one and not fixed. Also I am skeptical of "... regardless of interest to the OSM community" which sounds like a license for extreme hobby-horsing on the part of history buffs. We largely allow anyone in OSM to map what they're interested in, but explicitly stating this on a tagging page sounds like inviting conflict of the "but the WIKI says I can do this" kind. --Woodpeck (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Coolawik (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Unclear intent and benefit of this proposal. --Dafadllyn (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I'm very much for approving keys before approving random values but the historic=* is de facto which means it's well established. Very happy to approve the historic key but it's perhaps worth coming up with a formal definition of the key that the community accepts which might help resolve some of the more ambiguous/problematic values (and sub-keys) in this hierarchy --Casey boy (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Per other people who have commented on the unclear intent and benefit of the proposal. Although I would be approving of it if/when things are clarified. Adamant1 (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. It is not necessary to vote on a tag or key that already has a de-facto status. Do we need to vote on highway=*, landuse=*, amenity=* etc. too? What if they are rejected in the votings? Will they then be marked as deprecated? What we are actually voting on seems to be not the key itself, but its definiton. But in this case, this should be clearly stated. And even then, the voting would be pointless. First of all, I don't see a significant difference to how the key is already defined. Secondly, people change definitions all the time without voting or even discussion. No matter what definition we are voting for, they will change it anyway. --Fkv (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I would prefer to see main keys that refer to physical aspects of objects rather than their historic importance, which is too loose as a definition for a main key. --501ghost (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I don't see the appoint in "approving" a key which is already in widespread use. --Rskedgell (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I fear that historic will be misused as a backdoor for mapping things that are not wanted under the "on the ground" rule. --Protoxenusll (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)