[Tagging] Proposal ogham_stone

[Jan Michel]

On 07.02.21 19:29, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
 > There is a tag historic=rune_stone which sounds like it's a similar
 > sort of thing.  Would historic=ogham_stone be a better fit perhaps?

Wiki says
"The tag historic=stone is a generic tag for all small stones for which 
we have not yet established a more specific tag". and "stone_type=* - 
type of the stone".
So both, your suggestion and the proposal suggestion are fitting to 
current documented tagging practice.

To me it seems Ogham stones are a "local curiosity" and are not major 
enough to deserve a higher level historic=ogham_stone tag. (Please don't 
feel offended, that's just my personal impression not being a historician)

If we check both keys stone_type and stone in Taginfo, we see that
stone_type is exclusively used as described in the Wiki, to further 
specify kinds of historic stones. stone, on the other hand is seldomly 
used, and mostly to add further details to material=stone.
 From this I'd say that stone=ogham_stone would not be a good choice.

It's a pity that at around 2014 somebody decided to use 'stone_type' 
with the really not useful 'type' as part of the key, but for the moment 
it's a matter of fact that this key is in use and changing this is 
surely not within the scope of the Ogham Stone proposal.