Depends entirely on the our hopefully to come definition of
"archaeological site". But I don't have a solution for it yet either.
But I definitely think that some of the features mapped merely as
"historic" should be mapped as archaeological sites just because of the
state they're in. I would think that - without having looked at them on
satellite view most of the "historic=city" and "historic=town" are
actually archaeological sites, because otherwise all cities and towns in
the world are more or less historic. Unless one only maps the "old town"
part of the town as "historic" which is still inhabited.
I'd say most of the historic=shieling I would classify as archaeological
sites, but I can't give a good definition why. I would suspect them to
be in ruins, but I'm only guessing that from the booleys (roughly the
same thing) in Ireland. I think there is an annual archaeological summer
school at the one on Achill Island anyway (https://achill-fieldschool.com/).
Anne
On 17/10/2022 20:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 17 Oct 2022, at 20:30, Anne-Karoline Distel <[email protected]> wrote:
Not in reply to this specific email, but I've done a bit of tidying
amonst keys and values the last three days, and I've documented some of
my findings which might give food for thought:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/b-unicycling/diary/400164
which alternative of the 3 available would you prefer?
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
