Re: [Tagging] tagging historic ruins
sent from a phone > On 5. Jan 2020, at 22:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The archaeological site may cover several ruins, probably the entire > community. So I would map that over the entire area. archaeological sites quite often are nested, overlapping (both, horizontally and vertically) and layered. “the entire area” may be quite big and typically will have a common name, but it is also common that bigger sites will have smaller archaeological sites within. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging historic ruins
The archaeological site may cover several ruins, probably the entire community. So I would map that over the entire area. Then add any remaining structures with what they are now, which could well be historic=ruins. You might consider adding them to OHM too. On 06/01/20 06:21, Rob Savoye wrote: On 1/5/20 11:55 AM, Tod Fitch wrote: The name value almost certainly should not be “Indian Ruin”. If “Indian Ruin” is used for a value at all it should be in the description tag. Probably the more politically correct nowadays might be “Native American ruins”. That was my thought, "Indian Ruin" is overly generic, and should just be deleted as file bloat. Most of the larger sites have official names. “Montezuma Castle National Monument”, “Casa Grande Ruins National Monument”, “Tuzigoot National Monument”, “Tonto National Monument”, “Walnut Canyon National Monument”, “Palatki Heritage Site” and “Canyon de Chelly National Monument” in Arizona spring to mind. Within those sites the there may be individual buildings/groups of buildings that have names as well but those often seem to be descriptive (“Big House” or “South Buildings”). Correct, but that's when 'name=' should be used. And the name may also be subject to interpretation based on who you ask. Many official names have little to do with what the locals call it. OSM can support both. peoples (different native American tribes moving in, Spanish or Anglo). So I think the official names, probably found in the GNIS database is the best you are going to do. Yep, it's now the Ute reservation. I'm not going to add any names at this point, just curious about cleaning up some existing data. Mapping the ruins isn't the purpose of this trip, I just was wondering when looking at the data, and had the motivation to be a data janitor since I probably will try to ski/hike to some of these ruins. Regarding historic:civilization tag using “Ancestral Pueblo people” vs “Anazazi”, I think I’d go with “Ancestral Pueblo” as I think that is, from current thinking, historically accurate. I believe that “Anazazi” is Navajo for something like “ancient enemy” but could be I I'm going to ask in person what's the correct name as the locals think of it. "Pueblo People" is a catchall for multiple peoples that have lived there over the centuries and probably the least accidentally insulting. There's always the old joke about some person who gets a "ceremonial" native name, and later finds out it means something like 'stupid dog s$%t'... Regarding mapping of the individual buildings, my single feeble attempt at one site was foiled by the fact that it was, as is typical, in an overhang under a cliff with limited access. So my GPS had very inaccurate data and the site is not visible on aerial imagery. Best of luck in your mapping. Yeah, I'm a climber, and it's quite amazing to see how difficult some of the climbing to the cliff dwellings is. Some people think it was for defense, I think it was to keep the rats and other animals out of the stored food. It's a hard, dry country to live in... - rob - ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging historic ruins
On 1/5/20 11:55 AM, Tod Fitch wrote: > The name value almost certainly should not be “Indian Ruin”. If > “Indian Ruin” is used for a value at all it should be in the > description tag. Probably the more politically correct nowadays > might be “Native American ruins”. That was my thought, "Indian Ruin" is overly generic, and should just be deleted as file bloat. > Most of the larger sites have official names. “Montezuma Castle > National Monument”, “Casa Grande Ruins National Monument”, “Tuzigoot > National Monument”, “Tonto National Monument”, “Walnut Canyon > National Monument”, “Palatki Heritage Site” and “Canyon de Chelly > National Monument” in Arizona spring to mind. Within those sites the > there may be individual buildings/groups of buildings that have > names as well but those often seem to be descriptive (“Big House” or > “South Buildings”). Correct, but that's when 'name=' should be used. And the name may also be subject to interpretation based on who you ask. Many official names have little to do with what the locals call it. OSM can support both. > peoples (different native American tribes moving in, Spanish or > Anglo). So I think the official names, probably found in the GNIS > database is the best you are going to do. Yep, it's now the Ute reservation. I'm not going to add any names at this point, just curious about cleaning up some existing data. Mapping the ruins isn't the purpose of this trip, I just was wondering when looking at the data, and had the motivation to be a data janitor since I probably will try to ski/hike to some of these ruins. > Regarding historic:civilization tag using “Ancestral Pueblo people” > vs “Anazazi”, I think I’d go with “Ancestral Pueblo” as I think that > is, from current thinking, historically accurate. I believe that > “Anazazi” is Navajo for something like “ancient enemy” but could be I I'm going to ask in person what's the correct name as the locals think of it. "Pueblo People" is a catchall for multiple peoples that have lived there over the centuries and probably the least accidentally insulting. There's always the old joke about some person who gets a "ceremonial" native name, and later finds out it means something like 'stupid dog s$%t'... > Regarding mapping of the individual buildings, my single feeble > attempt at one site was foiled by the fact that it was, as is > typical, in an overhang under a cliff with limited access. So my GPS > had very inaccurate data and the site is not visible on aerial > imagery. Best of luck in your mapping. Yeah, I'm a climber, and it's quite amazing to see how difficult some of the climbing to the cliff dwellings is. Some people think it was for defense, I think it was to keep the rats and other animals out of the stored food. It's a hard, dry country to live in... - rob - signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging historic ruins
sent from a phone > On 5. Jan 2020, at 19:55, Tod Fitch wrote: > > One trouble with names it that the people who lived in those areas moved out > long before the advent of written documentation so we don’t know what they > called the places. All the names are from later peoples (different native > American tribes moving in, Spanish or Anglo). it’s not really an issue for us, because we use the current common name in the name tag, names from 1300AD would probably go into old_name if they were still known ;-) Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging historic ruins
The name value almost certainly should not be “Indian Ruin”. If “Indian Ruin” is used for a value at all it should be in the description tag. Probably the more politically correct nowadays might be “Native American ruins”. Most of the larger sites have official names. “Montezuma Castle National Monument”, “Casa Grande Ruins National Monument”, “Tuzigoot National Monument”, “Tonto National Monument”, “Walnut Canyon National Monument”, “Palatki Heritage Site” and “Canyon de Chelly National Monument” in Arizona spring to mind. Within those sites the there may be individual buildings/groups of buildings that have names as well but those often seem to be descriptive (“Big House” or “South Buildings”). I am not as familiar with sites outside of Arizona but suspect the same is true of those in New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, etc. One trouble with names it that the people who lived in those areas moved out long before the advent of written documentation so we don’t know what they called the places. All the names are from later peoples (different native American tribes moving in, Spanish or Anglo). So I think the official names, probably found in the GNIS database is the best you are going to do. Regarding historic:civilization tag using “Ancestral Pueblo people” vs “Anazazi”, I think I’d go with “Ancestral Pueblo” as I think that is, from current thinking, historically accurate. I believe that “Anazazi” is Navajo for something like “ancient enemy” but could be wrong on that. I guess I should have kept up contact with the fellow from the Hopi reservation that I went to high school with to be a bit more familiar with this history/background. :) Regarding mapping of the individual buildings, my single feeble attempt at one site was foiled by the fact that it was, as is typical, in an overhang under a cliff with limited access. So my GPS had very inaccurate data and the site is not visible on aerial imagery. Best of luck in your mapping. Cheers, Tod > On Jan 5, 2020, at 10:17 AM, Rob Savoye wrote: > > On 1/5/20 10:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> from my point of view, yes, it is usually preferable to tag ruins with >> historic=archaeological_site (unless they are modern/recent). I’ve >> myself used historic=ruins a lot many years ago and have since changed >> most of them to archaeological site. >> I also suggest to add historic:civilization to give more >> context: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic:civilization#values > > historic:civilization='Ancestral Pueblo people' or 'Anasazi' ? Yeah, > last known inhabitants was 1300AD. > >> And site_type of course: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/site_type > > I think archeologists still are arguing over the site type. :-) Nobody > really knows whether they were forts, food, storage, lodging, or all of > the above. > (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/riddles-of-the-anasazi-85274508/) > >> I’d see historic=ruins as a very generic fallback when you have no clue >> what you are looking at, but which should ideally be retagged if you do >> have an idea what it is. > > I'll fix the tag. When I get down that way, I plan to collect more > information from the locals. Most of it is reservation land and poorly > mapped. It's about a remote a place you can get to in the continental US. > > Oh, most of these have 'name="Indian Ruin", not sure if that's > necessary as it's redundant. > > - rob - > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging historic ruins
On 1/5/20 10:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > from my point of view, yes, it is usually preferable to tag ruins with > historic=archaeological_site (unless they are modern/recent). I’ve > myself used historic=ruins a lot many years ago and have since changed > most of them to archaeological site. > I also suggest to add historic:civilization to give more > context: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic:civilization#values historic:civilization='Ancestral Pueblo people' or 'Anasazi' ? Yeah, last known inhabitants was 1300AD. > And site_type of course: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/site_type I think archeologists still are arguing over the site type. :-) Nobody really knows whether they were forts, food, storage, lodging, or all of the above. (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/riddles-of-the-anasazi-85274508/) > I’d see historic=ruins as a very generic fallback when you have no clue > what you are looking at, but which should ideally be retagged if you do > have an idea what it is. I'll fix the tag. When I get down that way, I plan to collect more information from the locals. Most of it is reservation land and poorly mapped. It's about a remote a place you can get to in the continental US. Oh, most of these have 'name="Indian Ruin", not sure if that's necessary as it's redundant. - rob - ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging historic ruins
sent from a phone > On 5. Jan 2020, at 17:06, Rob Savoye wrote: > > > Digging around the internet, I see a variety of ways to tag sites like > this, and a few old unapproved proposals. Since these structures are > thousands of years old, shouldn't they be 'historic=archaeological_site' > instead ? Or 'historic=cliff_dwelling, ruins=yes' ? from my point of view, yes, it is usually preferable to tag ruins with historic=archaeological_site (unless they are modern/recent). I’ve myself used historic=ruins a lot many years ago and have since changed most of them to archaeological site. I also suggest to add historic:civilization to give more context: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic:civilization#values And site_type of course: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/site_type I’d see historic=ruins as a very generic fallback when you have no clue what you are looking at, but which should ideally be retagged if you do have an idea what it is. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
