[Tagging] barrows and tumuli

[Philip Barnes]

Long barrows are not always archeological or even historic.

Maybe they could be man_made=long_barrow.

Phil (trigpoint)

On 18 January 2023 15:48:42 GMT, Anne-Karoline Distel <annekadistel at web.de> wrote:
>The last couple of days, I've been looking at tumuli/ barrows on the
>map, because it turns out, it's the same. I have added that information
>to the wiki
>(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:archaeological_site%3Dtumulus).
>In Ireland and the UK, I've also tried to tidy up the tags, so there are
>now no archaeological_site=barrow/ ring-barrow/ round_barrow etc.
>
>I've also drawn diagrams of the different types of tumuli and added a
>table on the above mentioned tumulus wiki page which also shows possible
>redundant tags.
>
>However, long barrow is documented as archaeological_site=megalith +
>megalith_type=long_barrow. They should all fall into the same hierarchy.
>This is really my question - should long barrows not also be tagged as
>archaeological_site=tumulus + tumulus=long_barrow?
>
>Even when all tumuli are megaliths, but archaeological_site=megalith +
>megalith_type=tumulus + tumulus=long_barrow is a bit of an overkill, IMHO.
>
>Anne
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20230118/5495149e/attachment.htm>