<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>I am using local knowledge here, <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulton_Long_Barrow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulton_Long_Barrow</a><br><br>It has been featured on Country File so known outside The Shire.<br><br>Phil (trigpoint)<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 18 January 2023 17:55:57 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;">
<p>Well, yes, they're not historic; they're prehistoric. But we tend
to map those features with the historic tag nonetheless. <br>
</p>
<p>I don't understand why you say that they're not archaeological,
when they're written about by archaeologists and part of
archaeological surveys.<br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_barrow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_barrow</a></p>
<p>Like many British and Irish barrows (and maybe other areas, but I
haven't looked at those in much detail), they are <font face="monospace">man_made=cairn</font>, though, just under a
layer of soil.</p>
<p>Anne<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/01/2023 17:04, Philip Barnes
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:AA23EF16-0436-4DC2-878D-379804B341A5@trigpoint.me.uk">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
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 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:annekadistel@web.de"><annekadistel@web.de></a> 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
map, because it turns out, it's the same. I have added that information
to the wiki
(<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:archaeological_site%3Dtumulus" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:archaeological_site%3Dtumulus</a>).
In Ireland and the UK, I've also tried to tidy up the tags, so there are
now no archaeological_site=barrow/ ring-barrow/ round_barrow etc.
I've also drawn diagrams of the different types of tumuli and added a
table on the above mentioned tumulus wiki page which also shows possible
redundant tags.
However, long barrow is documented as archaeological_site=megalith +
megalith_type=long_barrow. They should all fall into the same hierarchy.
This is really my question - should long barrows not also be tagged as
archaeological_site=tumulus + tumulus=long_barrow?
Even when all tumuli are megaliths, but archaeological_site=megalith +
megalith_type=tumulus + tumulus=long_barrow is a bit of an overkill, IMHO.
Anne<hr>Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote></div></body>
</html>