Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal art sites

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 14:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  rock_painting and rock_art as discussed?
>

Yep! :-)

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal art sites

[Warin]

On 01/04/19 15:14, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:



On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 13:27, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:



I'm busy trying to get site:type in order ..


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:site_type#Other_undocumented_.28suggested.29_values


Wow!

Hadn't looked at it previously

Good luck with that one - you're a real glutton for punishment! :-)



Not doing it all .. just the bits on 'rock art' etc.. and the occasional 
thing that sticks in my craw...



Oh.. PS I'd add how to do carvings .. petroglyph 
 
falls right off my tongue and into never land, rock_painting and 
rock_art as discussed?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal art sites

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 13:27, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I'm busy trying to get site:type in order ..
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:site_type#Other_undocumented_.28suggested.29_values


Wow!

Hadn't looked at it previously

Good luck with that one - you're a real glutton for punishment! :-)

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal art sites

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 13:27, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Yes, please.


OK.

Added this:

Aboriginal & Torres Straight Islander sites

Please practice extreme care when mapping sites (e.g rock art, ceremonial
places) that may be of significance to Aboriginal or Torres Straight
Islander peoples.

Only map those sites that are sign-posted, or have been publicly advertised.

In all other cases, please consult with the local Elders before mapping any
site, & abide by their wishes if they say they don't want them mapped.

Thoughts or comments?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal art sites

[Warin]

On 01/04/19 14:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Thanks everybody!

Now, how?

"Australian guidelines"?



Yes, please. I'm busy trying to get site:type in order ..

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:site_type#Other_undocumented_.28suggested.29_values


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal art sites

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks everybody!

Now, how?

"Australian guidelines"?

Thanks

Graeme


On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 10:08, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

> I agree.
>
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 10:59, Ewen Hill  wrote:
>
>> This should be documented clearly. Whilst there is a lot of well known
>> art work, there are a significant number of sacred areas that should not be
>> mapped or identified due to the cultural significance. We only need one
>> person transgressing due to OSM to cause offence. I have just worked with
>> the local owners during an emergency and it is amazing the amount of
>> artifacts that were identified that could disappear if mapped accurately by
>> trophy hunters.
>>
>> Ewen
>>
>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 10:38, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 08:51, Gavin Scott  wrote:
>>>

 The issue about the sacred-ness -it is not the job of OSM to make this
 call. If you think an item is too private to map (perhaps such as a farmers
 internal road network) then don't map it. Tthis is the mappers call.

>>>
>>> There has been discussion here previously about mapping ceremonial
>>> trails, & the consensus was that it should only be done with the agreement
>>> & approval of the local Elders, so the same principle should apply to these
>>> sites.
>>>
>>> Should that be documented as OSM (maybe AU?) policy, or left to the
>>> discretion of individual mappers?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Graeme
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Warm Regards
>>
>> Ewen Hill
>> Internet Development Australia
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal art sites

[Andrew Harvey]

I agree.

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 10:59, Ewen Hill  wrote:

> This should be documented clearly. Whilst there is a lot of well known art
> work, there are a significant number of sacred areas that should not be
> mapped or identified due to the cultural significance. We only need one
> person transgressing due to OSM to cause offence. I have just worked with
> the local owners during an emergency and it is amazing the amount of
> artifacts that were identified that could disappear if mapped accurately by
> trophy hunters.
>
> Ewen
>
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 10:38, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 08:51, Gavin Scott  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The issue about the sacred-ness -it is not the job of OSM to make this
>>> call. If you think an item is too private to map (perhaps such as a farmers
>>> internal road network) then don't map it. Tthis is the mappers call.
>>>
>>
>> There has been discussion here previously about mapping ceremonial
>> trails, & the consensus was that it should only be done with the agreement
>> & approval of the local Elders, so the same principle should apply to these
>> sites.
>>
>> Should that be documented as OSM (maybe AU?) policy, or left to the
>> discretion of individual mappers?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
>
> --
> Warm Regards
>
> Ewen Hill
> Internet Development Australia
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal art sites

[Ewen Hill]

This should be documented clearly. Whilst there is a lot of well known art
work, there are a significant number of sacred areas that should not be
mapped or identified due to the cultural significance. We only need one
person transgressing due to OSM to cause offence. I have just worked with
the local owners during an emergency and it is amazing the amount of
artifacts that were identified that could disappear if mapped accurately by
trophy hunters.

Ewen

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 10:38, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 08:51, Gavin Scott  wrote:
>
>>
>> The issue about the sacred-ness -it is not the job of OSM to make this
>> call. If you think an item is too private to map (perhaps such as a farmers
>> internal road network) then don't map it. Tthis is the mappers call.
>>
>
> There has been discussion here previously about mapping ceremonial trails,
> & the consensus was that it should only be done with the agreement &
> approval of the local Elders, so the same principle should apply to these
> sites.
>
> Should that be documented as OSM (maybe AU?) policy, or left to the
> discretion of individual mappers?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


-- 
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal art sites

[Michael Gratton]

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 09:37, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
 wrote:
Should that be documented as OSM (maybe AU?) policy, or left to the 
discretion of individual mappers?


Definitely documented as such.

--
⊨ Michael Gratton, Percept Wrangler.
⚙ 



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal art sites

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 08:51, Gavin Scott  wrote:

>
> The issue about the sacred-ness -it is not the job of OSM to make this
> call. If you think an item is too private to map (perhaps such as a farmers
> internal road network) then don't map it. Tthis is the mappers call.
>

There has been discussion here previously about mapping ceremonial trails,
& the consensus was that it should only be done with the agreement &
approval of the local Elders, so the same principle should apply to these
sites.

Should that be documented as OSM (maybe AU?) policy, or left to the
discretion of individual mappers?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Aboriginal art sites

[Gavin Scott]

>
> I have tagged a variety of well known art sites in Kakadu.
>
I have tagged them as historic=archeological site, documented here
 and
that is clearly approriate.
Also tagged as tourism=artwork documented here
 and I believe
this to be appropriate as they constitute public art with touristic
significance - you travel as a tourist to this area and a major drawcard is
the rock art. They are in the public space.

The issue about the sacred-ness -it is not the job of OSM to make this
call. If you think an item is too private to map (perhaps such as a farmers
internal road network) then don't map it. Tthis is the mappers call.

I don't understand the discussion about rock shelters. They are a creation
of nature and happen everywhere. Who cares whether you cook in them or
merely seek shelter from the weather. I would suggest creating rock art
takes more than a day and therefore they were all cooking sites.

Ancient art in its pure manifestation is of historic significance as well
as fascinating to many people.


>
> > Are you only tagging those sites that are open & already advertised as
> > tourism sites?
> >
> > I think that would be the safest way of doing it, because they are
> > considered sacred sites, so we should be taking care to not show the
> > location of things that the local peoples may not want shown?
> >
>
> The ones I've seen mapped so far are well signposted and marked out, widely
> accepted as public knowledge.
> -- next part --
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal art sites.

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 09:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> a rock engraving with no paint => site_type=petroglyph
> a rock painting with no engraving => site_type=rock_painting
>
> Where it is both painted and engraved? site_type=rock_art
>

Yes, that looks fine to me.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal art sites.

[Warin]

On 01/04/19 08:41, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 07:49, Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote:



Are you only tagging those sites that are open & already
advertised as tourism sites?

I think that would be the safest way of doing it, because they are
considered sacred sites, so we should be taking care to not show
the location of things that the local peoples may not want shown?


The ones I've seen mapped so far are well signposted and marked out, 
widely accepted as public knowledge.


Yep. Only those sites that are commonly known have been mapped.

Others, even some I know of and some with websites, are not on the map 
nor commonly visited.


---
I think my take is;

a rock engraving with no paint => site_type=petroglyph
a rock painting with no engraving => site_type=rock_painting

Where it is both painted and engraved? site_type=rock_art

???



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Rock Overhangs

[David Wales]

I tend to agree with Warin here.
Unless some human has carved the cave out, I don't think it should count
as an amenity!

On 1/4/19 9:07 am, Warin wrote:
> I object. 
> amenity=shelter I see as a man made object, some with better shelter
> than others.
> I think these should remain in the 'natural key space, possibly
> natural=overhang?
> 
> But then what do I know???
> 
> amenity=shelter has
> shelter_type
> =rock_shelter - A
> rock shelter is a shallow cave-like opening at the base of a bluff or cliff
> 
> and that looks to fit perfectly!
> 
> I'd not tag them as camp sites, let people evaluate them and the
> surrounds themselves for camping rather than suggest a place.
> 
> 
> On 01/04/19 08:39, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>
>> > when (how deep) does a rock overhang / shelter become an actual cave? :-)
>>
>> Some judgement is needed, but the ones I've seen are pretty clear cut
>> as being one or the other.
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dshelter just says
>> "A shelter  is
>> small place to protect against bad weather conditions." which is
>> mostly what these overhangs are used for, so I think it's the
>> appropriate tag. If that shelter is frequently used as a camp site
>> (now, not just historically) then can be tagged tourism=camp_site with
>> a few extra tags
>> from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism=camp_site to help
>> distinguish this small camp site from the larger ones.
>>
>>
>> Is "not meant for sleeping, no cooking or heating equipement inside"
>> supposed to be a criteria for a shelter?
>>
>> I would say no. We should tag the rock overhang for what it is, and
>> use tourism=camp_site to say if it's commonly used for sleeping too.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 08:07, Graeme Fitzpatrick > > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 18:14, Andrew Harvey
>> mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Rock overhangs (rock shelters) have been quite extensively
>> mistagged in Australia as natural=cave_entrance.
>>
>> Are there any objections to re-tagging these overhangs tagged
>> as natural=cave_entrance to amenity=shelter +
>> shelter_type=rock_shelter?
>>
>>
>> No real objection, Andrew, but when (how deep) does a rock
>> overhang / shelter become an actual cave? :-)
>>
>> Also noticed in the discussion comments on  
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type
>>
>>
>> "Can you look if this could be tagged as a
>> shelter ? 
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Champlitte,_%C3%A9craigne.jpg Tounoki
>> 
>> 
>>  (talk
>> 
>> )
>> 14:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
>>
>> If it is open to the public, not meant for sleeping, no
>> cooking or heating equipement inside, then yes, you could
>> use amenity
>> =shelter
>>  +shelter
>> =weather_shelter 
>> 
>> "
>>
>> Is "not meant for sleeping, no cooking or heating equipement
>> inside" supposed to be a criteria for a shelter?
>>
>> Some of the overhangs I've seen are pitch black underneath from
>> many thousands of years of cooking fires, & are acknowledged as
>> places that Aboriginal peoples camped during bad weather - does
>> that mean they're not shelters? (although I don't know what else
>> they would then be?)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Rock Overhangs

[Warin]

I object.
amenity=shelter I see as a man made object, some with better shelter 
than others.
I think these should remain in the 'natural key space, possibly 
natural=overhang?


But then what do I know???

amenity=shelter has
shelter_type 
=rock_shelter - A 
rock shelter is a shallow cave-like opening at the base of a bluff or cliff


and that looks to fit perfectly!

I'd not tag them as camp sites, let people evaluate them and the 
surrounds themselves for camping rather than suggest a place.



On 01/04/19 08:39, Andrew Harvey wrote:


> when (how deep) does a rock overhang / shelter become an actual cave? :-)

Some judgement is needed, but the ones I've seen are pretty clear cut 
as being one or the other.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dshelter just says "A 
shelter  is small 
place to protect against bad weather conditions." which is mostly what 
these overhangs are used for, so I think it's the appropriate tag. If 
that shelter is frequently used as a camp site (now, not just 
historically) then can be tagged tourism=camp_site with a few extra 
tags from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism=camp_site to 
help distinguish this small camp site from the larger ones.



Is "not meant for sleeping, no cooking or heating equipement inside" 
supposed to be a criteria for a shelter?


I would say no. We should tag the rock overhang for what it is, and 
use tourism=camp_site to say if it's commonly used for sleeping too.



On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 08:07, Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote:




On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 18:14, Andrew Harvey
mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Rock overhangs (rock shelters) have been quite extensively
mistagged in Australia as natural=cave_entrance.

Are there any objections to re-tagging these overhangs tagged
as natural=cave_entrance to amenity=shelter +
shelter_type=rock_shelter?


No real objection, Andrew, but when (how deep) does a rock
overhang / shelter become an actual cave? :-)

Also noticed in the discussion comments on

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type


"Can you look if this could be tagged as a
shelter 
?http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Champlitte,_%C3%A9craigne.jpgTounoki

(talk

)
14:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If it is open to the public, not meant for sleeping, no
cooking or heating equipement inside, then yes, you could use
amenity
=shelter
 +shelter
=weather_shelter

"

Is "not meant for sleeping, no cooking or heating equipement
inside" supposed to be a criteria for a shelter?

Some of the overhangs I've seen are pitch black underneath from
many thousands of years of cooking fires, & are acknowledged as
places that Aboriginal peoples camped during bad weather - does
that mean they're not shelters? (although I don't know what else
they would then be?)

Thanks

Graeme



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal art sites.

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 07:49, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> Are you only tagging those sites that are open & already advertised as
> tourism sites?
>
> I think that would be the safest way of doing it, because they are
> considered sacred sites, so we should be taking care to not show the
> location of things that the local peoples may not want shown?
>

The ones I've seen mapped so far are well signposted and marked out, widely
accepted as public knowledge.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Rock Overhangs

[Andrew Harvey]

> when (how deep) does a rock overhang / shelter become an actual cave? :-)
Some judgement is needed, but the ones I've seen are pretty clear cut as
being one or the other.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dshelter just says "A
shelter  is small place to
protect against bad weather conditions." which is mostly what these
overhangs are used for, so I think it's the appropriate tag. If that
shelter is frequently used as a camp site (now, not just historically) then
can be tagged tourism=camp_site with a few extra tags from
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism=camp_site to help
distinguish this small camp site from the larger ones.

Is "not meant for sleeping, no cooking or heating equipement inside"
supposed to be a criteria for a shelter?

I would say no. We should tag the rock overhang for what it is, and use
tourism=camp_site to say if it's commonly used for sleeping too.


On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 08:07, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 18:14, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>> Rock overhangs (rock shelters) have been quite extensively mistagged in
>> Australia as natural=cave_entrance.
>>
>> Are there any objections to re-tagging these overhangs tagged as
>> natural=cave_entrance to amenity=shelter + shelter_type=rock_shelter?
>>
>
> No real objection, Andrew, but when (how deep) does a rock overhang /
> shelter become an actual cave? :-)
>
> Also noticed in the discussion comments on
>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type
>>
>
> "Can you look if this could be tagged as a shelter ?
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Champlitte,_%C3%A9craigne.jpg
> Tounoki
> 
>  (talk
> )
> 14:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
> If it is open to the public, not meant for sleeping, no cooking or heating
> equipement inside, then yes, you could use amenity
> =shelter
>  +shelter
> =weather_shelter
> 
> "
> Is "not meant for sleeping, no cooking or heating equipement inside"
> supposed to be a criteria for a shelter?
>
> Some of the overhangs I've seen are pitch black underneath from many
> thousands of years of cooking fires, & are acknowledged as places that
> Aboriginal peoples camped during bad weather - does that mean they're not
> shelters? (although I don't know what else they would then be?)
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Rock Overhangs

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 18:14, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> Rock overhangs (rock shelters) have been quite extensively mistagged in
> Australia as natural=cave_entrance.
>
> Are there any objections to re-tagging these overhangs tagged as
> natural=cave_entrance to amenity=shelter + shelter_type=rock_shelter?
>

No real objection, Andrew, but when (how deep) does a rock overhang /
shelter become an actual cave? :-)

Also noticed in the discussion comments on

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type
>

"Can you look if this could be tagged as a shelter ?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Champlitte,_%C3%A9craigne.jpg Tounoki

 (talk
)
14:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
If it is open to the public, not meant for sleeping, no cooking or heating
equipement inside, then yes, you could use amenity
=shelter
 +shelter
=weather_shelter

"
Is "not meant for sleeping, no cooking or heating equipement inside"
supposed to be a criteria for a shelter?

Some of the overhangs I've seen are pitch black underneath from many
thousands of years of cooking fires, & are acknowledged as places that
Aboriginal peoples camped during bad weather - does that mean they're not
shelters? (although I don't know what else they would then be?)

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal art sites.

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 10:38, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I don't like the tourism tag for them so much, prefer the historic as that
> better describes them?
>

I've got no real input into what "type" of art we call them, but one
thought re the tourism side of things.

Are you only tagging those sites that are open & already advertised as
tourism sites?

I think that would be the safest way of doing it, because they are
considered sacred sites, so we should be taking care to not show the
location of things that the local peoples may not want shown?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Aboriginal art sites

[Gavin Scott]

I don't think site_type = cave_painting is correct as aboriginal art is not
usually in cave.
Aboriginal art is made in all sorts of places - under rock overhangs (where
it is protected from the weather), but can also be on rock faces with no
overhang. Sometimes it is in caves.
Gavin


>
>
>
>
>
> So I think,
>
> an engraving with no paint => site_type:petroglyph
> a rock art with no engraving => site_type:cave_painting
>
> with site_type:parietal_art being a valid less specific tag for both.
>
> I agree that tourism=artwork doesn't seem right, given they were not
> created for tourism in the first place, and not necessarily as artworks
> either!
>
>
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 11:14, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > Aboriginal rock engravings are tagged;
> >
> > "historic"="archaeological_site"
> >
> > site_type"="petroglyph"
> >
> >
> > What should Aboriginal painted sites be tagged?
> >
> >
> > "historic"="archaeological_site"
> >
> > site_type"= ???
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20190331/843ce30a/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 19:12:44 +1100
> From: Andrew Harvey 
> To: OSM Australian Talk List 
> Subject: [talk-au] Rock Overhangs
> Message-ID:
>  y2...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Rock overhangs (rock shelters) have been quite extensively mistagged in
> Australia as natural=cave_entrance.
>
> Are there any objections to re-tagging these overhangs tagged as
> natural=cave_entrance to amenity=shelter + shelter_type=rock_shelter?
>
> Of course they would only be re-tagged where we have local knowledge or
> otherwise to verify.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=cave_entrance
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dshelter
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20190331/456db70e/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> --
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> --
>
> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 141, Issue 38
> 
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Rock Overhangs

[Andrew Harvey]

Rock overhangs (rock shelters) have been quite extensively mistagged in
Australia as natural=cave_entrance.

Are there any objections to re-tagging these overhangs tagged as
natural=cave_entrance to amenity=shelter + shelter_type=rock_shelter?

Of course they would only be re-tagged where we have local knowledge or
otherwise to verify.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=cave_entrance
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dshelter
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Aboriginal art sites.

[Andrew Harvey]

Hey I was just thinking about this myself the other day.

"Petroglyph is image created by removing part of a rock surface by
incising, picking, carving, or abrading, as a form of rock art." So when
there is on engraving, only paint then petroglypth would be incorrect based
on that definition.

Rock art (parietal art) is a superset of petroglyph. That is cave paintings
and petroglypths are both forms of rock art, at least from my reading of
wikipedia.

So I think,

an engraving with no paint => site_type:petroglyph
a rock art with no engraving => site_type:cave_painting

with site_type:parietal_art being a valid less specific tag for both.

I agree that tourism=artwork doesn't seem right, given they were not
created for tourism in the first place, and not necessarily as artworks
either!


On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 11:14, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> Aboriginal rock engravings are tagged;
>
> "historic"="archaeological_site"
>
> site_type"="petroglyph"
>
>
> What should Aboriginal painted sites be tagged?
>
>
> "historic"="archaeological_site"
>
> site_type"= ???
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au