[Tagging] Proposal ogham_stone

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

It's not that I pulled all the tags out of thin air; I looked at the
wiki first, that's why the stone_type, even though I understand now that
it's not the perfect tag to use, when the origin could be meant or the
size or the use.

I'm not terribly offended, since I'm not Irish.

Define "small stone". Some ogham stones and some rune stones are quite
big, i.e. couldn't be moved by a single person.

Am 07/02/2021 um 18:49 schrieb 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging