[Tagging] RFC: tomb key

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 26. Feb. 2021 um 17:37 Uhr schrieb John Sturdy <jcg.sturdy at gmail.com
>:

> Dolmen might be another value for the tomb type; see
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:megalith_type%3Ddolmen
>


thank you John, that's a good mention. Question is, should it be double
tagged? There are already an incredible 3814 occurences of
megalith_type=dolmen and the wiki suggests currently to tag them with
historic=archaeological_site and site_type=megalith. There's also a
site_type=tumulus by the way, so there is naturally some overlap between
the generic archaeological site and the specific tomb tagging (many
historic tombs can also be seen as archaeological sites). The reason for
the specific tomb proposal in 2011 was that archaeological site wasn't very
developed at the time, and that I had to map hundreds of tombs within on
site (in alternative one could also nest sites).
I think I will add tomb=dolmen, there are already very few instances of
this "in the wild".

Cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210226/2e9008a9/attachment.htm>