Proposal talk:Tag:settlement=transhumance

What actions would this imply

Do you propose to change the established 22,000 historic=shieling into

historic=settlement
settlement=transhumance

maybe with an optional transhumance=shieling, where it fits? Stephan t (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, "shieling" is a term used in Scotland, but the bulk of these are used in Norway, so the Scottish term should not apply and would need to be mass retagged, unfortunately, imho. B-unicycling (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Some possible suggestions

I came across this proposal via the write-up in [weeklyOSM 826](https://www.weeklyosm.eu/archives/18587) and wanted to say great work, Anne-Karoline. The rationale is solid and the international vocabulary table is a real asset.

On Stephan_t's question: I'd suggest clarifying that this proposal does *not* imply mass re-tagging of the existing 22,000 `historic=shieling` objects. The two tags can coexist, with `transhumance=shieling` available as an optional regional qualifier where it fits. That clarification would belong naturally in the Features/Pages Affected section, alongside a note to update the `Tag:historic=shieling` page with a "See also" cross-reference.

A few other things that might help before RFC:

'''Scope: historic vs. active''': the infobox says "historical seasonal settlement" but some examples (the Haute-Provence photo) suggest living practice. A short statement clarifying that the tag is for archaeological remains and recorded monument sites (not active present-day transhumance pastures) would head off questions during voting.

'''The `settlement` key''': since the key page doesn't yet exist, reviewers will likely ask why not `historic=transhumance` or `archaeological_site=transhumance` instead. A short paragraph in the Rationale defending the key choice (or acknowledging it as an open question) would strengthen the proposal.

'''Geometry guidance''': a brief note on node vs. area vs. relation would help mappers apply it consistently; for example, node for a single hut site, closed way for a settlement enclosure, and relation for a heritage trail grouping.

'''Features/Pages Affected''': currently empty, but will need to list at minimum `historic=shieling`, `archaeological_site=settlement`, `historic=archaeological_site`, and a note that a new `Key:settlement` page will need creating if approved.

'''Impact on Data Consumers''': worth expanding with a concrete example such as an Overpass Turbo query pattern, to make the case more tangible for reviewers.

None of these are blockers. The core case for the tag is well made.

Well done,

Chris Chris debian (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for all your input!

I don't know enough about the culture worldwide to know whether it is still practised. The examples from Tyrol and other images suggest that the animals are still being driven up and down the mountains, but I don't know whether the humans still stay with them or whether improvements in transport and technology (CCTV for cattle?) has replaced that. My focus has always been on historical features, and I would not want to exclude a tribe somewhere in Asia or Africa from using a current tagging scheme, just because I am ignorant of their customs. But I also don't have the resources to research every indigenous culture on the planet to make sure, so I'll stick to the few historic cultures I know a bit about.

I would prefer to keep the step settlement, because that way, other types of settlement can be grouped under it, such as town or village or ecclesiastic., but we still have the option to filter each one out.

I'll work on your other suggestions, thanks again. B-unicycling (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Just trying to help, you're doing good stuff.

Chris Chris debian (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @B-unicycling , I also learned about your proposal via weeklyOSM. I've not much to comment on the proposal as such, but I wanted to share that transhumance is indeed practiced still today in a lot of places worldwide. I'm mostly aware of the transhumance in Mali and Mauritania because I have lived and worked there for some time, but I'm aware of very similar situations for example in South Sudan, where a subset of the population goes out for fishing. With this message I wanted you to suggest to touch base with the mapping communities who know well about transhumance as it is practiced today to see if your proposal would work with them as well. Jorieke (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

In my experience, we don't necessarily treat the same things that exist as historic and as still in use the same, when mapping them. I would therefore prefer to stick with the historic, i.e. long disused and described by historic/ folklore/ archaeological texts, and people who want to map the ones currently in use can decide whether they want to subclassify landuse=residential or place=locality to denote it as a transhumance settlement.B-unicycling (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)