[Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

On 08/10/2022 05:39, Warin wrote:
>
>
> On 8/10/22 04:54, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
> I note that settlements are already on the values for the key
> historic, e.g farm, manor, monastery, castle ... all places where
> people lived. So historic=crannog would 'work'?
>
> If people say they are archaeological sites then why not the above
> farm, manor, monastery, castle etc???
>
Personally, I use historic=castle/ church/ creamery for ones that are in
ruins (wall(s) still standing in combination with building=ruins), not
ones that are archaeological sites (mostly ground level or below
ground). And crannogs, because of their material, tend to be
archaeological sites rather than ruins.

I'm not totally opposed to cutting out the "settlement" bit; maybe I
just like to categorize things more than other people.

Anne

>> Cheers,
>>
>> Anne
>>
>
> Good luck. May need a strong drink.
>
>> On 07/10/2022 13:07, martianfreeloader wrote:
>>> Being practical: Just use the settlement_type=crannog tag.
>>> I'm totally fine this.
>>>
>>> Being principal would be to approve the settlement_type=crannog.
>>> I'm not fine with this for the reasons laid out.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/10/2022 13:46, Peter Elderson wrote:
>>>> I am one of those who didn't bother to look what it's about.
>>>> I share the wish to tag crannogs as important historical structures
>>>> still existing today.
>>>> I share the criticism that _type does not mean anything. At the
>>>> same time I don't care if it is there or not; settlement=* also
>>>> does not say what kind of categorisation is used for the values.
>>>> But the settlement key ius already in (scarce) use for something
>>>> else, with values yes and no.
>>>>
>>>> As for implicit approval of the higher tags, fine with me! They are
>>>> in actual use in a scheme, and for me that is good enough. If
>>>> anyone would start a separate vote for that, fine. If the current
>>>> vote is postponed till after, fine, it is the royal way I think,
>>>> but I think it is not necessary. I think we can be practical about
>>>> this, not principal. It's just not big enough.
>>>>
>>>> Peter Elderson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Op vr 7 okt. 2022 om 13:10 schreef Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:ajt1047 at gmail.com>>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     On 07/10/2022 11:27, Marc_marc wrote:
>>>>      > Hello,
>>>>      >
>>>>      > Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
>>>>      >> who cares for "in use" or "approved"
>>>>      >
>>>>      > me :)
>>>>      >
>>>>      > approved that means that the subject has been discussed,
>>>>      > that people have spent time on it, that there has been
>>>>      > an opportunity to detect problems, to propose improvements
>>>>      > it's quite different from an "in use", because a guy invented
>>>>      >
>>>>     Unfortunately discussion and "voting" by people who have only the
>>>>     vaguest idea of what the thing being voted on is adds no
>>>> value*. There
>>>>     is a place on the "B Ark" for them...
>>>>
>>>>     The fact that there was only one comment during the fortnight of
>>>>     discussion means that people really don't know (or don't care)
>>>> what
>>>>     these are, and people who do know and care (such as the proposer)
>>>>     should
>>>>     probably "just map these".  Whether that's via
>>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/defensive_settlement=crannog
>>>> <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/defensive_settlement=crannog>
>>>>     (which is slightly ahead in taginfo) or
>>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/settlement_type=crannog
>>>> <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/settlement_type=crannog>
>>>>     matters
>>>>     little; there are few of them in OSM right now, and the word
>>>> "crannog"
>>>>     is characteristic enough, that they can fairly easily be
>>>> remapped into
>>>>     some "better" archaeological scheme at some later stage.
>>>>
>>>>     What matters is getting them mapped, and getting from the 10s
>>>> currently
>>>>     in OSM to the 1500 or so that apparently do or did exist**.
>>>>
>>>>     Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>>     Andy
>>>>
>>>>     * We still don't know what bicycle=designated means
>>>> https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230
>>>> <https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     ** According to wikipedia.  I was surprised that there were
>>>> apparently
>>>>     as many as 1200 in Ireland.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     Tagging mailing list
>>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Tagging mailing list
>>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging