Long barrows are not always archeological or even historic. Maybe they could be man_made=long_barrow.
Phil (trigpoint) On 18 January 2023 15:48:42 GMT, Anne-Karoline Distel <annekadis...@web.de> wrote: >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
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
