[Tagging] historic=archaeological_site with site_type=rock_art, rock_painting definitions

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Mon Apr 1 12:51:28 UTC 2019

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 06:47, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

> Within OSM 'we' could adopt that rock_art is where both carving and
> painting are used together? That would distinguish it from either of the
> above.
> There are some 22 uses of site_type=rock_art, I think most of them would
> go to either site_type=rock_painting or site_type=petroglyph only
> leaving a very few of this type.

Site_type=* is a subtag of historic=*.  Both are largely the demesne of the
mapper Lutz because
they were defined by him for use on his historic place project:

I'm not saying he is the ultimate arbiter of those tags, because OSM is
anarchic and nobody
controls anything.  However, his project is the only carto I know of where
those tags are
rendered.  You are free to add any site_type you wish, even without prior
discussion here,
but if you want them to be rendered anywhere it's best to get in touch with
Lutz and discuss
it with him.

BTW, I don't know if Lutz is male or female but trying to rewrite the above
in gender-neutral
language is difficult.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190401/7eebf93a/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list