The last couple of days, I've been looking at tumuli/ barrows on the map, because it turns out, it's the same. I have added that information to the wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:archaeological_site%3Dtumulus). In Ireland and the UK, I've also tried to tidy up the tags, so there are now no archaeological_site=barrow/ ring-barrow/ round_barrow etc.
I've also drawn diagrams of the different types of tumuli and added a table on the above mentioned tumulus wiki page which also shows possible redundant tags. However, long barrow is documented as archaeological_site=megalith + megalith_type=long_barrow. They should all fall into the same hierarchy. This is really my question - should long barrows not also be tagged as archaeological_site=tumulus + tumulus=long_barrow? Even when all tumuli are megaliths, but archaeological_site=megalith + megalith_type=tumulus + tumulus=long_barrow is a bit of an overkill, IMHO. Anne _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
