[Tagging] tagging historic ruins

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Sun Jan 5 17:56:22 UTC 2020



sent from a phone

> On 5. Jan 2020, at 17:06, Rob Savoye <rob at senecass.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>  Digging around the internet, I see a variety of ways to tag sites like
> this, and a few old unapproved proposals. Since these structures are
> thousands of years old, shouldn't they be 'historic=archaeological_site'
> instead ? Or 'historic=cliff_dwelling, ruins=yes' ?


from my point of view, yes, it is usually preferable to tag ruins with historic=archaeological_site (unless they are modern/recent). I’ve myself used historic=ruins a lot many years ago and have since changed most of them to archaeological site.
I also suggest to add historic:civilization to give more context: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic:civilization#values

And site_type of course: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/site_type

I’d see historic=ruins as a very generic fallback when you have no clue what you are looking at, but which should ideally be retagged if you do have an idea what it is.

Cheers Martin 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200105/1b4ca120/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list