[Tagging] Proposal ogham_stone

[Jan Michel]

Hi,
I suggest to keep the proposal simple. That is, describe the main goal 
(introducing stone_type=ogham_stone), add a few relevant links to other 
tags (e.g. Key:inscription). Add a short explanation, why you chose to 
use stone_type instead of stone (because of current use of both keys 
strongly suggested that).
Don't merge too many things into one proposal. There's always one 
special aspect one person doesn't like and that makes them vote against.

Your basic proposal, to have a tag for Ogham stones would have been 
clearly approved if either the '_type' aspect or the inscription:* 
aspect had been missing.

Regarding your idea of adding references to an external database - this 
could be done, but please use some standard tags. 
ref:ogham=NUMBER_OR_NAME would be a reasonable way.
But don't include it in the proposal of your primary key - there's 
always a few voters who don't like external references (for good 
reasons) and, combined with others, let the proposal fail.


Jan

On 07.02.21 16:05, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
> It looks like it might not get approved, so I'll have to adapt the 
> proposal to try and get a better standard. A resource has come to my 
> attention that could add more value. I'll just copy and paste what I put 
> on the discussion page, in case people don't find it there:
  If we had a tag ogham_in_3d:ref
>     to add the name, the link could be displayed similarly to how the
>     wikipedia or mapillary links work.