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
