Talk:Proposed features/Historic name
Is it advisable to use 'historic:name=*' instead of 'historic_name=*'? This is similar to 'building:material=*'.
Wouldnt this be more relevant as an "Alias" rather than a "Historic name" as nearly everything can and has changed name at some point. This way any subsequent name changes will allow the opportunity to retain a previous name. A logical progression on this is that it would allow for future generations of route planners to identify & map relating to alternative names rather than just the currently specified name - something that could be highly relevant depending on the nature of the change of name and its historical, cultural or religious significance.--Patndave (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)