[Tagging] Proposal ogham_stone

[Jan Michel]

On 07.02.21 19:54, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
> 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.

Right... This is quite a dilemma. Effectively this means we can't 
approve a new key here, before we approved another proposal to change 
stone_type to something else. I guess that this proposal won't be 
approved because of "why change a working tag - just because we don't 
like the name is not a reason". At least I wouldn't approve 'stone' as a 
replacement because it is way too generic.

So, your suggestion seems to be the only way out, historic=ogham_stone.
That's not too bad.