Proposal talk:Tag:site type=defensive settlement

Solve this with a sub-tag instead?

How about sticking with site_type=settlement and adding a sub-tag fortification=yes?

Advantages:

• A fortified settlement seems to be a sub-category of a site_type=settlement, rather than a new sub-type of historic=archaeological_site that is different to site_type=settlement. It would be appropriate to reflect the taxonomic hierarchy in the tagging.
• The new tag fortification=* could potentially be used for other objects, too.
• If in the future, we want to specify the exact type of fortification, we could re-use the fortification=* key and just give it values other than fortification=yes or fortification=no, for example fortification=wall, fortification=palisade or whatever (I'm not an archeologist).

--Martianfreeloader (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not talking about fortified settlements, but defensive settlements, and I'm furthermore not in favour of binary tags, i.e. the yes option, when more precision is possible. fortification=* is also not new. So I don't follow your argument against (?) the newly proposed tag. I'm also not an archaeologist, and the ones I've talked to are not mappers and haven't ever thought about classifications like this. B-unicycling (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd be willing to change it (for ringforts and crannogs) to site_type=settlement + settlement_type=crannog/ settlement_type=ringfort and whatever else historic there is, oppidum and settlement_type=village (for all the "lost" villages) possibly. That would be a different approach, maybe simpler and requiring fewer sub-categories. B-unicycling (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

If some place is already tagged site_type=fortification, I don't see what good fortification=yes does. To be fair, only 10 mapped so far. B-unicycling (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)