Proposal:Tag:site type=defensive settlement

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Filing cabinet icon.svg

The content of this proposal has been archived to avoid confusion with the current version of the documentation.

View proposal content

Tag:site type=defensive settlement
Proposal status: Proposals with undefined or invalid status (inactive)
Proposed by: B-unicycling
Tagging: site_type=defensive_settlement
Applies to: node, area, relation
Definition: An archaeological site of a civilian settlement with defensive structures (walls, ditches, fences etc) to keep enemies out.

Draft started: 2022-09-16
RFC start: 2022-09-18


It is proposed to create a new sub-type for archaeological sites for defensive civilian settlements, i.e. were a family or clan lived - sometimes with their lifestock - rather than a monastic or military settlement. The term "defensive" is to be understood as the settlement having been erected by the settlers for keeping enemies out rather than being built by an oppressive or external force to keep civilians or prisoners of war "in" (like a ghetto, an internment or concentration camp).

(site_type=fortified_settlement would have to be dealt with in a new proposal.)

This is ideally drawn as an area or as part of a relation. If the exact extent of the site is not known, a node in the approximated centre of the settlement shall be added.


site_type=settlement does not cover the defensive nature of certain settlements like[1] ringforts (atm tagged as site_type=fortification, but subject to change to the new tag[2]) and crannogs (subject to upcoming proposal, if this one is approved). It is felt that a difference should be made between civilian (family based settlements) and religious or military structures, and that it makes a differences whether the structure results in a self-imposed isolation or isolation created by an adversary party.



Additional tags like further sub-categories, references numbers, names, heritage=* may be added where appropriate.



Like historic sites in general.

Features/Pages affected

External discussions

Proposing party talked to several archaeologists in person who all had different opinions, but are not mappers.




  1. Coming as usual from an Irish perspective.
  2. Since it does not match the definition of site_type=fortification on the wiki anyway.

See also

Please comment on the discussion page.