Re: [Tagging] barrows and tumuli

2023-01-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 19 Jan 2023, at 10:25, Philip Barnes wrote: > > The one I mentioned is a bit unique. It's not fake or a folly, it is an > active place for burials. it may not be “fake” in the sense of pretending to be something different, but it mimics neolithic construction

Re: [Tagging] barrows and tumuli

2023-01-19 Thread Philip Barnes
The one I mentioned is a bit unique. It's not fake or a folly, it is an active place for burials. The internal construction is clear on the current bing imagery. Phil On 19 January 2023 09:04:14 GMT, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >Am Mi., 18. Jan. 2023 um 19:43 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes <

Re: [Tagging] barrows and tumuli

2023-01-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 18. Jan. 2023 um 19:43 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes < p...@trigpoint.me.uk>: > I am using local knowledge here, > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulton_Long_Barrow > > It has been featured on Country File so known outside The Shire. > architectural style: "neoneolithic", ok, a fake

Re: [Tagging] barrows and tumuli

2023-01-18 Thread Anne-Karoline Distel
Fair enough, that's not historical yet. I was referring to the other 171 already mapped (https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1qiS). Anne On 18/01/2023 18:40, Philip Barnes wrote: I am using local knowledge here, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulton_Long_Barrow It has been featured on Country File

Re: [Tagging] barrows and tumuli

2023-01-18 Thread Philip Barnes
I am using local knowledge here, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulton_Long_Barrow It has been featured on Country File so known outside The Shire. Phil (trigpoint) On 18 January 2023 17:55:57 GMT, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: >Well, yes, they're not historic; they're prehistoric. But we

Re: [Tagging] barrows and tumuli

2023-01-18 Thread Anne-Karoline Distel
Well, yes, they're not historic; they're prehistoric. But we tend to map those features with the historic tag nonetheless. I don't understand why you say that they're not archaeological, when they're written about by archaeologists and part of archaeological surveys.

Re: [Tagging] barrows and tumuli

2023-01-18 Thread 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 wrote: >The last couple of days, I've been looking at tumuli/ barrows on the >map, because it turns out, it's the same.

[Tagging] barrows and tumuli

2023-01-18 Thread Anne-Karoline Distel
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