Talk:Key:heritage

Clearing usage of heritage tag

It is just said that heritage tag is filled according to the admin_level. What is the criteria for level?

What if one object is national heritage and has national designation and also classified as world heritage and has WHO designation? How to tag both?

What is operator? World Heritage Organization, national level institution, regional or city level institution, or actual owner of the property?

How to enter reference designations assigned by both Word Heritage Organization and national institution (two different designations)

In case of two desigantions (national and WHO), a WHO site is always first and foremost a national/local site, but the idea is to attribute the highest level. About the operator/owner, that depends on the object to which the heritage tag is being attributed. There's always a local/national operator. The WHO doesn't operate anything, it just recognizes the place as world heritage. Regards. --AntMadeira (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It is reasonable need to enter designations for several levels. Those are all valid and needed information. Imagine simple case of showing active map of national heritage linked to external databases. If you cannot have designations, you cannot link. On many objects I saw that are listed by WHO, OSM contains only WHO references and WHO listed as operator, and of course no data about national level designations, or actual operators. That is why I asked this, because it makes no sense to me. If some heritage is listed by WHO, yes it is important to have record on that in OSM, but not for the price of ditching information on national or other level. --Pedja 09:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, I misunderstood your question. I thought you were talking about which admin_level should be applied in case of reference both in national and international levels. You can and should attribute tags for different designations. For example, a Portuguese national monument that is also a WHO site: heritage=1 + ref:whc=<who number> + whc:criteria=(i),(ii),(iii)...(ix),(x) AND heritage:operator=* + ref:dgpc=* + dgpc:inscription_date=* + heritage:website=*. This way, you'll get two ref:*=* in order to state they are listed both nationally and internationally. --AntMadeira (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

This sounds somewhat right approach and it is logical way to do it but it is not documented as such. It would be good to document this and make it official. Actually, it should be mandatory, at least for international levels to use heritage:something and ref:something tags which represent those levels (like heritage:WHC=1 and ref:WHC for WHO or heritage:EU?=2 and ref:EU? for EU levels). That would resolve issue and leave space for entering data in predefined, ordered and unified manner for any level. We can surely do similar for my country but it would be good to have this as a rule so all tools that deal with heritage data in OSM could know what to expect. --Pedja (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the wiki could be more explicit on that and have more examples, but I can infer that from the information that its already there. For example, you can check the part referring to UNESCO and then each country (almost all of them) has its own operator and scheme. What I don't agree with is the tag heritage:operator=whc, because WHC doesn't operate anything. For a site/monument to be a UNESCO heritage must be a national site/monument first, operated locally. --AntMadeira (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Should level be interpreted as highest level of protection ignoring lower levels of protection? What if we need to add lower levels of protection for the sake of being able to extract data based on those levels?

One more issue with tagging protection level is that it is not always the case that level protection is based on administrative levels within countries. Effectively, only two values of admin_level are viable: 1 for global and 2 for national. Lower administration levels may not match actual protection levels within country. Maybe it should not be even treated as level of protection, maybe level of jurisdiction is more appropriate term?

Tagging heritage:operator is tricky. WHC is never operator but often OSM shows it is. On national level, institution in charge for protection (on several levels) may be operator but that is not rule as some museum may be operator or even property owner. It is wrong to set WHC as operator and also wrong to assume that any other institution charged for property protection operates it too. It seems like there is a need to separate institutions in charge for protection and operator. Operator is just one - one who actually takes care of object. Usually, there are more institutions that are in charge for protection. For World Heritage there are at least two: WHC and national institution, but usually there are more on lower level within country. It is sensible to provide means to describe that within OSM database for the reason that there is reasonable need to extract data based on protection levels(or jurisdictions) - for example to create maps based on institutions in charge for protection.--Pedja (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ A museum operator would be operator=* and the property owner would be owner=*. heritage:operator=* is the organization that manages ("operates") the heritage designation of the feature, not the feature itself. ":operator" subkeys are usually misnomers in this regard. This is a useful distinction, because even very common heritage:operator=* values may say nothing about day-to-day facility operation or maintenance or legal status. For example, the NRHP in the U.S. confers no actual legal protection, even from demolition, just a bit of extra prestige that sometimes facilitates more robust local designations. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 18:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

type=site and relations

Unfortunately it's not allowed to add relations to a site relation (warning by JOSM, see Types of relation), but you need e.g. a relation for a building with parts. The only possible solution I found in this case is type=boundary (which allows relations) + boundary=protected_area + protect_class=22. So isn't type=boundary generally better than type=site? --Sinuhe20 (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you really need to add relations to the site relation? Why not just add each building/part to the site relation? It works well for a cultural heritage composed of several buildings, points, lines, etc. See example --AntMadeira (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Multiple heritage values

The first section of this talk page "Clearing usage of heritage tag" appears to ask the same question but the answer is still unclear to me - What if a building/place has a national-level and state-level heritage level & operator. For example, Annuciation Church in Houston,TX,USA was inducted into the Recorded Texas Historical Landmark in 1969; heritage=4+heritage:operator=rthl. Then in 1975 it was inducted into the National Register of Historic Places; heritage=2+heritage:operator=nrhp.
Does the national level take priority or do they combine like heritage=2;4+heritage:operator=nrhp;rthl ? Thanks BubbleGuppies (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I would say the lowest number has highest priority, but you could also add tags like ref:operator for lower levels. --Sinuhe20 (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal:Create a wiki project for listing all UNESCO Heritage sites

Is there a list somewhere already? Should we create one to assure that we get to document all? I've beend mapping some of my countries sites and they were missing. If we make a list first, we can assure all get covered --Pantufla (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

+1 Good idea, I support this. I've also mapped some sites. --Sinuhe20 (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

just put a table with all objects tagged with "heritage:operator"="whc" into a sortable table to have a template to today's state.-- Gisbert (Gmbo) (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Just created it on the community forum, I hope to see you there :) @Sinuhe20: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/new-wikiproject-unesco-heritage-mapping/105475/3

--Pantufla (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Should heritage imply protect_class=22?

Because the heritage tag itself it's not a top level scheme (JOSM even complains that there's no tag describing the area when you create a multipolygon of several heritage buildings) should/could it imply boundary=* + protect_class=22 to avoid the problem pointed out by JOSM? See here for more info. --AntMadeira (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)