<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <p>Fair enough, that's not historical yet. I was referring to the
      other 171 already mapped (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1qiS">https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1qiS</a>).</p>
    <p>Anne<br>
    </p>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/01/2023 18:40, Philip Barnes
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:5F372057-61CC-4DD6-8F30-20818E4162DB@trigpoint.me.uk">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      I am using local knowledge here, <a
        href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulton_Long_Barrow"
        moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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 <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;">
          <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"
              moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true"><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 moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" moz-do-not-send="true">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 moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" moz-do-not-send="true">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
          </blockquote>
        </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>
  </body>
</html>