Proposal:Ogham stone

The content of this proposal has been archived to avoid confusion with the current version of the documentation.
ogham_stone | |
---|---|
Proposal status: | Approved (active) |
Proposed by: | b-unicycling |
Tagging: | historic=ogham_stone
|
Applies to: | node |
Definition: | An Ogham stone is a stone with a ![]() |
Statistics: |
|
Draft started: | 2021-02-09 |
RFC start: | 2021-02-09 |
Vote start: | 2021-02-14 |
Vote end: | 2021-02-28 |
Proposal

Over 400 examples of stones featuring the earliest Irish writing system still exist in Ireland and around the Irish Sea. An official tag would help to map them. The tagging follows the very similar and established historic=rune_stone
.
To a non-historian, they might look the same as rune stones and their distribution areas overlap because of Viking invasions of Britain and Ireland. However, they are not, since runes were used to write Old Norse, a Germanic language, and Ogham is used for Primitive Irish, a Celtic language. Runes are written on the surface of the stone, whereas Ogham uses the edge of a stone.
- The 360 stones which show off the earliest writing in Ireland (RTÉ)
- Examples on an alphabetical list: megalithicireland.com
Rationale
Ogham is the earliest form of writing in Ireland and stones bearing Ogham inscriptions are part of the National heritage in Ireland and could thus be mapped. Since they come in different sizes, a decision between megalith
and minilith
should be avoided.
Query for name~Ogham
shows 20 mapped in Ireland, Wales and Scotland: overpass-turbo
Examples
-
Tralee, Co. Kerry
-
Lamoge, Co. Kilkenny
In this Time Team episode (Spoiler alert!) they find an stone that has ogham on it.
- Arraglen Ogham Stone
- Ballycrovane Ogham Stone
- Ballaqueeney Ogham Stone
- Breastagh Ogham Stone
- Castletimon Ogham Stone
- Cloonmorris Ogham stone
- Darrynane Beg Ogham Stone
- Dungummin Ogham Stone
- Dunloe Ogham Stones
- Kiltera Ogham Stones
- Silchester Ogham stone (in England)
How to map
Set a node and add
historic=ogham_stone
. Add name=*
, preferably using an established name used in research literature.
Optional Extra Data
How to tag | Example | Explanation |
---|---|---|
name | Arraglen Ogham Stone | Use a well established (for example Wikipedia page or other OpenSource) and verifyiable (see source ) name.
|
inscription=* |
The text of the inscription in Ogham characters, as written on the stone. | |
inscription:en=* |
Translation of the inscription. | |
inscription:pgl-Latn=* |
QRIMITIR RO/Ṇ[A]/ṆN MAQ̣ COMOGANN |
Transcription of the text of the inscription in Latin alphabet |
inscription:pgl-Ogam=* |
The inscription in Ogham characters. This tag is purely optional, inscription=* is usually sufficient
| |
wikipedia=* |
en:Arraglen Ogham Stone |
If this stone has a Wikipedia article |
wikidata=* |
Q48797670 |
|
moved=* |
If the stone has been moved from its original place, add moved=yes . moved=no (i.e. it has not been moved) should be assumed to be the default
| |
height=* , width=* |
height=1.91 , width=0.38 |
|
description=* |
standing upright, 1.67m in height above ground |
|
material=* |
sandstone |
What type of stone is this (sandstone/ granite etc)? |
source=* |
survey | The source of the major part of tags |
source:inscription=* |
wikipedia |
If you haven't transcribed the inscription yourself, please give your source. |
source_ref=* |
https://ogham.celt.dias.ie/stone.php?lang=en&site=Arraglen&stone=145._Arraglen&stoneinfo=description |
The URL of an external source consulted |
Applies to
Nodes
Rendering
Suggested icon with the inscription reading "OSM" (from bottom to top).
Features/Pages affected
historic=*
External discussions
Comments
Please comment on the discussion page.
Voting
Voting on this proposal has been closed.
It was approved with 14 votes for, 1 vote against and 1 abstention.
I oppose this proposal. I object to the use of
historic=stone
. New schemes for mapping objects should not use anything other thanhistoric=yes
because there is always the possibility of modern reproductions, which would then require us to come up with a new way of tagging non-historic versions or to map non-historic objects as historic. We can't realistically do anything about older values but we shouldn't continue to treathistoric=*
as a primary key. --Brian de Ford (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- I would argue that modern reproductions fall under
tourism=artwork
, even if it is con art in some cases.B-unicycling (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- I would argue that modern reproductions fall under
I approve this proposal. --Mueschel (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. I understand people wishing to have historic key for "really historic, not just old, must be important". But it would require redefining
historic=wayside_shrine
and other - without that it is just more confusing. I am not entirely sure is it really possible to do in the objective way. I am not aware about any good way to achieve that (is there writeup/plan how to achieve this?). As result, for me, use of historic key is not a blocker. --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I don't understand the urgency of the second vote as some objections like the mentioned "drop controversial source on object" didn't get an answer from the creator of the proposal. --Nospam2005 (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. --Heikkivesanto (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I approve this proposal.This was sufficiently justified and works ok in the tagging schema with similar items --DeB1gC (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. --Komadinovic Vanja (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. --Jeisenbe (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. --Ibanez (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. --Rskedgell (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. The rejection of this item the first time round really showed up what a charade proposal voting is. I'm voting this time to try & ensure it passes, but also to encourage someone who put a lot of work in to document this. SK53 (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. --Something B (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. --BrianH (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. --AlephNull (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. --Riiga (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)