[Tagging] Proposal ogham_stone

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

With regard to stone_type, 85% of the usage is for the
tag stone_type=conciliation_cross.(1500 usages)

All of the other values have scant usage, less than 100 in all cases.

Based on those numbers, I would not regard stone_type as representing any
sort of current practice that must be respected based on existing usage.
As far as I know, none of those values of stone_type were approved via
proposal, and approving it in this case would in effect represent an
approval/endorsement of the stone_type key, which many object to.

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 1:50 PM Jan Michel <jan at mueschelsoft.de> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210207/bb5a9c45/attachment.htm>