<html><head></head><body>Long barrows are not always archeological or even historic.<br><br>Maybe they could be man_made=long_barrow.<br><br>Phil (trigpoint)<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 18 January 2023 15:48:42 GMT, Anne-Karoline Distel <annekadistel@web.de> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre dir="auto" class="k9mail">The last couple of days, I've been looking at tumuli/ barrows on the<br>map, because it turns out, it's the same. I have added that information<br>to the wiki<br>(<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:archaeological_site%3Dtumulus">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:archaeological_site%3Dtumulus</a>).<br>In Ireland and the UK, I've also tried to tidy up the tags, so there are<br>now no archaeological_site=barrow/ ring-barrow/ round_barrow etc.<br><br>I've also drawn diagrams of the different types of tumuli and added a<br>table on the above mentioned tumulus wiki page which also shows possible<br>redundant tags.<br><br>However, long barrow is documented as archaeological_site=megalith +<br>megalith_type=long_barrow. They should all fall into the same hierarchy.<br>This is really my question - should long barrows not also be tagged as<br>archaeological_site=tumulus + tumulus=long_barrow?<br><br>Even when all tumuli are megaliths, but archaeological_site=megalith +<br>megalith_type=tumulus + tumulus=long_barrow is a bit of an overkill, IMHO.<br><br>Anne<hr>Tagging mailing list<br>Tagging@openstreetmap.org<br><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>