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.

> 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

Reply via email to