[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - archaeological_site

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Hi Andy,

all the existing archaeological sites with site_type would have to be
retagged, if this is approved. I'm not proposing this lightly, but it is
what the people criticising the "_type" suffix want, apparently.

It just occured to me that it would probably also affect histosm.org.
But I must presume the critics have thought of all that before they voted.

Anne

On 22/10/2022 13:34, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 22/10/2022 11:44, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
>> Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about
>> the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key
>> from site_type to archaeological_type for reasons laid out under
>> "Rationale":
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:archaeological_site
>>
>>
> Hello,
>
> That page says "This would apply to c. 113 000 features".  For the
> avoidance of doubt, are you suggesting (after the acceptance of this
> proposal) that people would "just start using the new values", or are
> you planning a series of edits following
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct ,
> or do you believe that acceptance of
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:archaeological_site
> implies acceptance of a change to OSM data as well?
>
> The reason that I'm asking is as can be seen from
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/site_type#projects I'm
> currently using that tag to control display of features (actual
> example code at
> https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L5622
> for info) and it'd be good to know when I need to change that to say
> something else.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging