Talk:Proposed features/Historic center
This proposal sounds reasonable to me as - especially in Europe - there are lots of very old habitations. Cities and towns with centres even older than two millennia are IMHO of special interest, especially when they are well preserved/restored/maintained.
These historic centers are AOIs (as in Areas of Interest) mainly for tourists. So I think it's worth mentioning ... and rendering, too.
Just my 2 € cents - Ralf aka User:TigerDuck
- I don't think, they are of interest just for tourists. This would be in a small town whose economic structure is tourism-based, otherwise, let's say in e.g. London, the center is frequented by all kind of people. Dieterdreist 11:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes a very reasonable thing to tag, but the landuse tag is not suitable, since a commercial landuse often now is the use of these old historic centres. --Thomas Wood 08:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps tourism=historic_center then? This tag has not been used for areas before, but I cannot think of any reasons why not. MikeCollinson 08:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think you would say landuse=retail and not landuse=commercial since in the Map Features pages the value "commercial" is for offices and not for shops. Anyway i think that a specific landuse tag is better because it's a bit ambiguous to use the same tag (landuse=retail) both in historic centers and big moderns shopping malls. I disapprove the key:tourism because an historic center isn't only a touristic place, it's a part of a city designed by urban/landuse planning and the tag landuse refers to urban planning. If you see the other tourism=* tags you can see that they are for a specific touristic facility not for an area (sometimes big) with many different things in it. And tourism it's only a side of the historic center of a city, what about the people who live there? alessioz 9:38 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely - for example Oxford's historic centre is already divided up into landuse based on its current usage (mostly commercial and retail, but a bit of residential - although the Colleges of the University are tagged with both tourism=attraction and amenity=education, so in my humble opinion this needs a keyspace that isn't landuse=, tourism= or amenity=! Socks 20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I think the tag historic-center does not completely fullfill the requirements, as center or core-district is still missing also for non-historic cities (or cities whose historic center was demolished or otherwise destroyed)(note: Kerngebiet according to German Baunutzungsverordnung, I'm sure this exists also in other countries, stands for (relatively) high density, mixed use including administration, housing, business, retail, commerce, entertainment, culture, leisure, but normally excluding production and industry). PLEASE DO ALSO NOT JUST TAG OUR CENTERS COMMERCIAL OR TOURISTIC, this would rather miss the point and reduce our centers to pure commercial zones like shopping malls! There is tons of philosophic, sociologic, urbanistic and other literature and essays about what is a center, which I can't summarize in a small discussion like this, but feel free to make your own research. The center is very much depending on local tradition, culture, and urbanism. There are not only monocentric but also polycentric cities (e.g. a wikipedia article in German language http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadtkern).... I would suggest to tag all those high-density mixed use areas (see above) as: landuse=core or landuse=center which can be equally used for historic and modern citiesDieterdreist 11:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Dieterdreist, I like very much your proposal and I'm ready to switch to it!
- Perhaps it would be better to add some sort of specification such as landuse=city_core so it's more clear even without description. I don't know if "city" is the right prefix since it could be used for villages too but this could be explained in the description. --Alessioz 14:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, go ahead, I would be pleased. landuse=city_core is fine to me. Could also be used for smaller villages, but there the prefix "city" maybe sounds strange, on the other hand, people are tagging "village_green" in Rome ;-) Dieterdreist 09:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what this would add, and the line it take is probably a matter of opinion. If I haven't been to a city and I'm wanting to know if it's historic then I'll probably look at the wikipedia article and see photos, otherwise I probably don't care and just want to find my way around. - LastGrape/Gregory (LwD) 20:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
A museum is a museum. That's all there is to say. --Lulu-Ann 10:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Normal touristic map feature
This is an often used tag on touristic maps of larger areas to destinguish places with ensembles of historic buildings from places that just have the one or other historic building or none. I find it very useful when traveling and not having planned the route beforehand and looked up every place I pass. If rendered this tag ought to be restricted to a middle range of scales. Considering an area, I would rather like to have areas of build up land limits at certain periods in time. Ok this might be to much for many places and would only be interesting for themed maps but it would be great to have the information. A special area might be useful for places that once had a city wall - maybe as area of the walled city at its largest extent. --T.woelk 10:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)