<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Apr 27, 2022, 00:39 by graemefitz1@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div></div><div><br></div><div class=""><div class="" dir="ltr">On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 23:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div><div><br></div><div dir="auto">Because it is<br></div><div dir="auto">- unverifiable for mappers<br></div><div dir="auto">- often tricky: one historian will claim "it is certainly remain of old chapel of following<br></div><div dir="auto">shape", other will dispute is it certain, another will claim that it was a palace,<br></div><div dir="auto">another will describe it as a city wall, another will...<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>But wouldn't all of that simply be tagged as an archeological site?<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">yes, such tagging is fine but<br></div><div dir="auto">destroyed:building=chapel <br></div><div dir="auto">in shape reconstructed by one of archeologists is not<br></div> </body>
</html>