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
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
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,
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
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
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
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'
>
