[Tagging] RFC: tomb key

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 26. Feb. 2021 um 20:16 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com>:

> I'd always map these as archaeological sites because they are.
>


I mostly agree, maybe not when there is a bigger site with several of them
within. You could add tomb=dolmen to dolmen tagged as archaeological sites
as well, but it might not make a lot of sense (well, you'd save 1 tag if
you do not double tag, because of the megalith intermediate step, but who
would not double tag if several tags are available ;-) ). The question how
you structure the sites, especially if you are not an expert in the field,
is probably according to the names that the experts have given, so when
there is a named site with 3 "unnamed" dolmen inside, I could imagine you
use the archaeological site tagging for the site and the tomb tags for the
dolmen within.



> Most end up with heritage protection because of their archaeological
> importance.
>


sure, but that's a different tag anyway (heritage)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210226/9b8a91ed/attachment.htm>