Proposed features/ogham stone

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
ogham_stone
Status: Voting (under way)
Proposed by: b-unicycling
Tagging: historic=ogham_stone
Applies to: node
Definition: An Ogham stone is a stone with a Ogham script on it. They are most commonly found in Ireland as free standing stones, lying on the ground, recycled in buildings such as churches or as artefacts in museums.
Drafted on: 2021-02-09
RFC start: 2021-02-09
Vote start: 2021-02-14
Vote end: 2021-02-28

Proposal

The twenty standard letters of the Ogham alphabet and six forfeda.

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.

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

In this Time Team episode (Spoiler alert!) they find an stone that has ogham on it.

How to map

Set a node node and add historic=ogham_stone. Add name=*, preferably using an established name used in research literature.

Optional Extra Data

Caption text
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

Ogham stone.svg 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

Instructions for voting
  • Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
  • Scroll down to voting and click 'Edit source'. Copy and paste the appropriate code from this table on its own line at the bottom of the text area:
To get this output you type Description
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.
{{vote|yes}} --~~~~ Feel free to also explain why you support proposal.
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. reason
{{vote|no}} reason --~~~~ Replace reason with your reason(s) for voting no.
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. comments
{{vote|abstain}} comments --~~~~ If you don't want to vote but have comments. Replace comments with your comments.
Note: The ~~~~ automatically inserts your name and the current date.
For full template documentation see Template:Vote. See also how vote outcome is processed.
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I object to the use of historic=stone. New schemes for mapping objects should not use anything other than historic=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 treat historic=* 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 approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Mueschel (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal 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 abstain from voting but have comments 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 I approve this proposal. --Heikkivesanto (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal 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 I approve this proposal. --Komadinovic Vanja (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Jeisenbe (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Ibanez (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Rskedgell (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal 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 I approve this proposal. --Something B (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --BrianH (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --AlephNull (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Riiga (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Older vote