I think it's enough for a road to have a roughly similar route to be called a Roman road.
I think the tag historic=roman_road or historic=road should at least resemble something historic. If only the route is historic, then adding something like historic=route to the type=route relation might be better. On Sat, Sep 14, 2019, 20:22 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 13. Sep 2019, at 19:42, Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > BTW, a better way for marking Roman roads would be to use > historic=roman_road. It's a > > lapsed proposal, and doesn't show even on lutz's historic places map, > but it would allow > > a simple overpass-turbo query and might even let you map them with uMap > (going by > > the amount of data in just one Roman road, that's probably > impracticable, though). It's > > been used 2000 times, so you could probably use it without a formal > proposal. > > > yes, or historic=road with historic:civilization=ancient_roman > > I’ve used both variants in the past but just had a second thought: is this > about roads that are still with the original paving or also applicable to > roads that were built by the romans but now have different paving (and > maybe are wider, and maybe even left the original position for small parts)? > > > Cheers Martin > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
