Proposal:Historic event

historic=event
Proposal status:	Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by:	JohnSmith
Tagging:	historic=event Data item
Applies to:	area
Definition:	Any event of historical significance, even if there is no physical evidence of the event left, such as famous robberies and assassinations.
Statistics:
Rendered as:	Not in standard map
Vote start:	2011-05-02
Vote end:	2011-05-18

Summary

Any event of historical significance, even if there is no physical evidence of the event left, such as famous robberies and assassinations.

Tagging

• historic=event
• historic:event=<type of event; e.g. robbery or assassination>
• name=<name of the event> (optional)
• date=<date of the event> (optional)

See also

• historic=battlefield
• History graph for this tag

Opinion poll/Vote as "Map Feature"

Any tags are accepted in OSM but would you like to see this tag in the Map Features wiki page as an "agreed recommended feature" (as the page "Map Features" defines its content) ?

Write {{poll|yes}} or {{poll|no}} or {{vote|yes}} or {{vote|no}} and/or check the pros and cons on the Talk page.

Depending on the result, this page could be added (or not) in the Map Features wiki page.

• I approve this proposal. -- Dieterdreist 17:03, 2 May 2011 (BST)
• I don't like this proposal. An event is not material, but the tag historic:event=* may be associated with a material object if it has important history --Dri60 18:08, 2 May 2011 (BST)
• I don't like this proposal. because "significant" is subjective and is opening the pandora box (e.g. murders, crimes maps, short news items) --Pieren 18:34, 2 May 2011 (BST)
• I don't like this proposal. And I feel that historic=battlefield also should be removed from Map Features. The tags can be mentioned on historic=* though, but outside the table.

--Skippern 20:26, 2 May 2011 (BST)

• I oppose this proposal. Only substantial items like memorial markers should be mapped, not virtual events. I second removing historic=battlefield from map features for the same reason. --Nop 21:32, 2 May 2011 (BST)
• I oppose this proposal. : I don't mind if people use this tag or historic=battlefield, but I think map features page is not suited to list those two immaterial tags unless there is something on the ground (but then I whould personnaly tag it as memorial or plate plus additionnal tags to describe what there is to remember).sletuffe 14:22, 3 May 2011 (BST)
• I don't like this proposal. I don't think not-currently-existing features belong in the database at all. --Max 16:13, 3 May 2011 (BST)
• I don't like this proposal. Battlefields are different in that they're like other landuse, or are often a park. Events aren't something that's observable. --Emacsen 16:00, 5 May 2011 (BST)
• I don't like this proposal. Mapping features that do not physically exist today should not be recommended by placing this on Map Features. --Tordanik 19:02, 5 May 2011 (BST)
• I approve this proposal. -- lutz 21:03, 5 May 2011 (BST)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. -- People are only voting no because Nop is gaming things, and people will still tag things of historical significance at the place they occurred regardless if this tag is removed from the wiki, historic=battlefield is a good example, 317 uses and I bet not all left scars that can still be seen, you also have 2,100 uses of historic=pa, which is apparently Maouri forts, and I bet a large number of these locations are historically significant even if there is nothing remaining on the surface JohnSmith 03:10, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Actually, there has been no private exchange with anybody. I was merely the first to object to a blatant misuse of map features. I request that you either bring forward proof for your accusation or remove it immediately. --Nop 08:03, 6 May 2011 (BST)

I can assure you that I didn't have any contact with Nop before I've voted no. I'm old enough to act for myself. -- AndiPersti 18:13, 13 May 2011 (BST)

• I oppose this proposal. A map is the physical image true to scale of the earth's surface. This occurs in two dimensions with paper maps or 3 dimensions with some digital maps. Besides, the representation of the fourth dimension (time) stands except question. Historical events are listed, e.g., in chronicles for which these were created. An entry in a physical map is pointless and brings no added value to the information to the user.--R-michael 16:54, 8 May 2011 (BST)
• I oppose this proposal. Events don't belong in maps. --Scai 17:44, 8 May 2011 (BST)
• I oppose this proposal. This belong in a separate database that references the OpenStreetMap database just like detailed building models or time tables for buses and trains. OpenStreetMap is about the geographical location of physical objects, not about events happening there. Mapping a monument is fine, but don't try to map the battle. --Petschge 8:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. There is nothing gained by sticking event markers in the database. Web pages containing information about the event should embed a suitable map instead. ---EdLoach 09:40, 9 May 2011 (BST)
• I oppose this proposal. Feel free to use this tag yourself, but I don't think we should be recommending it to anybody. If there's a physical trace, then yes, the trace should be tagged as having a larger context than might be apparent. For example, a little hillock not otherwise notable if once earthenworks for a battle would reasonably be tagged as having a historic context. But no trace at all? Why put it on the map? RussNelson 13:29, 9 May 2011 (BST)
• I oppose this proposal. Only map physical objects on the ground. I'm also against showing the tag on "Map Features" -- AndiPersti 09:16, 11 May 2011 (BST)
• I don't like this proposal. Too subjective for inclusion on a top-level page, too few current uses to derive any useful information about how to use it. Suspect it doesn't really meet the test of Verifiability for any user other than a historian with really accurate out-of-copyright maps - unless there's some sort of monument on the ground, in which case you can map the monument. --achadwick 10:20, 18 May 2011 (BST)
• I abhor the discussion around this proposal. Not as proposed, but the data would be superb. I'd love to make maps showing, say, crossings with pedestrians killed or maimed in accidents. We trust mappers to record features as accurate as they can, and an observation of an event is just as good - and any reasonable (to their standard) source for historic events should likewise do. Alv 10:46, 18 May 2011 (BST)