Proposal:Ogham stone

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The content of this proposal has been archived to avoid confusion with the current version of the documentation.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

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  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.
Statistics:

Draft started: 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

  • Tralee, Co. Kerry

    Tralee, Co. Kerry

  • Lamoge, Co. Kilkenny

    Lamoge, Co. Kilkenny

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

Voting closed

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 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

Comments from voting 2021-01-25-2021-02-08

Comment: Most oppose voter were not happy with the stone_type=*, so a revamped proposal will deal with that. Comments about the inscription=* and related ones will be taken into account as well.

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Dónal (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Rorym (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. (Was abstain.) I'd love to see these stones mapped and only nitpicks remain: I would still suggest inscription:writing_sytem/script=* over inscription:alphabet=* since that unambiguously includes all other writing systems, but I guess alphabet is also sometimes used generically for all writing systems. --AlephNull (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. While I don't see a need for proposal for an obvious type value, I happily help to heave the stone over the voting threshold. The inscription issue might be worth a further look, to use an ISO key, if it exists, might be the better solution indeed. --Polarbear w (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I have some doubts but unlike author of this proposal I will not use either tagging, so I will support it. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Tadcan (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Sorry to not shown up during short RFC earlier this month. This proposal encourages the use of of a type key which is a no-go for me. stone_type=* may be moved to stone=* without loss of any information prior to add any new value Fanfouer (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
This seems like a discussion about stone_type=* vs stone=* and I don't see a problem of migrating all stone_type=* to stone=*, once that is an actually established key.B-unicycling (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --I am glad to see this sort of proposal, even if it is just in Ireland and Western Britain. I do not agree that a feature not found ubiquitously on the earth needs to have its heritage value justified if it is well structured. This will not impinge on tagging anywhere else (which is often a way of rebutting proposals here), and will add to a richer and less generic database. DeB1gC (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Another one who's never likely to use it, but no reason to deny it to those that will! --Fizzie41 (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Sorry for not commenting earlier. Can you give an example of how inscription:ogham=* would work? Are there actual unicode characters for that? An example would be helpful. Also, it's not clear whether inscription:alphabet=ogham is a standard construction - are there other examples of "alphabet" being used in tagging in this way? --ZeLonewolf (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Ogham is part of Unicode, in the U+1680 to U+169F range. --Carnildo (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure can do. Ogham stone with inscription:ogham=*. B-unicycling (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. After studying this further, I have the following objections:
  • stone_type=* is barely used, and we should not promote a tag with the unnecessary _type suffix. I suggest stone=* instead. The current use of stone_type=* is so small that I think it would be fine for this to be the first value in a new key.
  • The inscription tagging needs to use standard coding for languages and alphabets, in a way that is consistent with other usages. This question was never addressed in my original abstain vote above. Specifically:
  • Alphabets need to use standard codes. Alphabets should be described with 4-letter ISO 15924 codes, which would be ogam for the Ogham alphabet.
  • Languages should use standard conventions also, using ISO 639-2 and -3 codes, but this is not mentioned. For example, pgl is the ISO 639-3 code for "Primitive Irish". My rudimentary Googling seems to indicate that Ogham was used for multiple languages in ancient Ireland, so it seems like both parts (alphabet+language) need to incorporated.
--ZeLonewolf (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. sorry for not commenting earlier, I believe you should use a different tag, my proposal would be historic_stone=* to avoid mixing these categories for historic stones with the existing geological classification in stone=* (values like granite or limestone). "stone_type" has too few semantic detail. --Dieterdreist (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Not my specialty but seems reasonable--Mar Mar (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. don't promote the meaningless _type suffix Marc marc (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Ogham is a script type and therefore should use the conventions for any language/script tags, i.e. inscription:pgl-Ogam. This should be changed after the voting finished. Opposed to others I think 'stone_type' is acceptable in this case because it is an established key and the proposal only adds a new value. The selection of the key is not an issue of this proposal. --Mueschel (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I agree that stone_type should be moved to just stone in the future, but just adding a value to the existing tag is not a problem. --Riiga (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
what is the point of approving a key if it is then going to be changed right after the vote ? it is much easier to get the right key approved directly rather than expecting a key to be changed after it has been approved Marc marc (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Clarification needs to be made about inscription=*, it would be the same as inscription:ogham=*, as that is what is on the stone. For translations you should always use a language suffix, e.g. inscription:en=* --GoodClover (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
inscription would be in the Latin alphabet, inscription:ogham or inscription:ogam in the Ogham script. B-unicycling (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
In that case this is wrong, and I change my vote to no. The native language of a feature is what goes in the tags, for other languages you use a language suffix. --GoodClover (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I see your point; I'll bear it in mind. B-unicycling (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal, changed vote. See above. --GoodClover (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. The type suffix is what I do not like about it. --V-Li (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Ravlop (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Eireidium (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I really appreciate the suggested icon rendering! --TheBlackMan (talk) 06:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Nothing against the idea behind the proposal but due to the *type as mentioned by others and the fact that's it's a written stone so inscription:ogham? Well Ogham (OH-am) is an ancient alphabet, not a language, see also above. --Nospam2005 (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Change to stone= --Lectrician1 (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposal:Ogham_stone&oldid=2670521"