Talk:OpenHistoricalMap/Tags/LifeCycle

What other relation types could possibly serve as lifecycle applications?

The need for supporting different lifecycle elements is clear!

My question: is it possible to identify the major categories of lifecycle use cases that we might imagine right now? (knowing that this would grow quickly) And, could we figure out ways of supporting those that don't require a new type=* tag?

For example, for changes to any political territories boundary, couldn't we just use a super-relation (relation of relations) with type=boundary?

Like here for San Marino: https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/relation/2692742

Now, this embeds date info into the member relations, and might also be best served by pointers like preceded_by=RWN_id & followed_by=RWN_id, but I think this might get at the 80/20 use case for these situations.

(I'll add some other examples later... gotta run to Costco... :(

--Jeffmeyer (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I just reviewed relation types in OSM and there are not any existing approved generic relation types, but there is a proposal for a generic group. I added mention of this on the page. Nfgusedautoparts (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)