[Tagging] historic tagging, obelisks

Johan Jönsson johan.j at goteborg.cc
Thu Feb 3 19:18:47 GMT 2011

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at ...> writes:
> Has there been a conclusion on which "main" tag to use? Who is against
> man_made and who is against historic?
> Actually I am against subtagging them as columns (IMHO they don't
> qualify, a column can't have a pointed top).
A very close cousin to the obelisk is the etiopian stelae, 
here is one example moved to Rome (and back again)
"These obelisk, properly termed "stele" or the native "hawilt/hawilti" 
(as they do not end in a pyramid), 
was carved and erected in the 4th century AD 
by subjects of the Kingdom of Aksum"

It would be great if there where an english term that could encompass 
obelisks, high freestanding columns and other stelae that is clos in resemblance.

but if there isn´t any such term then:
man_made=obelisk is great.
It fits with the other man_made.

It is better than historic=obelisk 
(why tag the Las Vegas obelisk different from others)
Maybe tourism, culture or landmark=obelisk could work?

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at ...> writes:
> I suggest
> height for the overall height (including the base and eventual
> additions to the top) above ground ( so you get the height of the top
> by adding ele and height).
> and
> obelisk:height for the net height of the obelisk itself

As you say, there should be a whole range of nice subtags to describe it.
I hope we are not going to tag the individual parts of the monument. 
The overall height (including the base and eventual additions to the top)
should be one of the most important subtags.

Let us test to tag some examples here on the mail-list.
/Johan Jönsson

More information about the Tagging mailing list