Proposal:Key:archaeological site

archaeological_site
Proposal status:	Voting (under way)
Proposed by:	b-unicycling
Tagging:	archaeological_site=* Data item
Applies to:	node, way, area, relation
Definition:	To replace the site_type=* key for archaeological sites to define archaeological sites further.
Statistics:
Draft started:	2022-10-20
RFC start:	2022-10-22
Vote start:	2022-11-14
Vote end:	2022-12-04

Proposal

It is proposed to change the main key for archaeological sites from site_type=* to archaeological_site=*. This would apply to c. 113 000 features. The reason for the vague number is given under "Rationale 2".

This is not a semantic discussion, i.e. this is not the place to discuss what the definition for an archaeological site is.

Rationale

1. It would only be logical to use the value of the superior key as the key tag below in the hierarchy.
2. During the voting process for settlment_type=crannog, voters against and abstain voters voiced their concern about the "type" suffix. It is believed that the root of this development might be the site_type=* key which then led to sub-categories like fortification_type=*, settlement_type=*, castle_type=*, milestone_type=* etc. Changing the tagging from the top town, as demanded in the voting process for crannog would require this key to be changed.
3. Contrary to what the description for site_type=* suggests, it is not exclusively used for archaeological sites, but also as a sub-category for the relation type=site. Examples being site_type=parking and site_type=mineral_extraction (the latter also being used in combination with historic=archaeological_site).

overpass turbo query showing all site_type=* without the combination with historic=archaeological_site

Tagging

historic=archaeological_site + archaeological_site=*

Rendering

Like the current combination of historic=archaeological_site + site_type=*.

Features/Pages affected

• iD editor form/ presets for archaeological sites
• https://histosm.org
• https://castle-map.infs.ch/
• https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/site_type#projects
• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:site_type=tumulus with all its translations
• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:site_type=fortification with all its translations
• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:site_type=megalith with all its translations
• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:site_type=settlement with all its translations
• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:site_type=necropolis with all its translations
• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:site_type=petroglyph with all its translations
• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:site_type=city with all its translations
• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:site_type=roman_villa with all its translations
• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:site_type=hut_circle with all its translations
• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:site_type=bigstone with all its translations
• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:site_type=enclosure
• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:site_type=baths with its German translation
• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:site_type=roman_circus with all its translations
• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:site_type=minilith
• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:site_type=crannog

External discussions

• Tagging mailing list
• Twitter

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.

Voting

Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was approved with 20 votes for, 4 votes against and 0 abstentions.

Thanks to all who voted!

• I approve this proposal. -- Something B (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I don’t see merit in changing the tag identifier just for the sake of consistency. I am used to site_type, many fellow mappers probably are, data consumers as well, it seems like a lot of work, leading likely to confusion in the transition period, and not much gain if any. —Dieterdreist (talk) 11:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think being used to a tag is a good argument against changing it. I'm certainly used to site_type myself, but I can adapt my JOSM presets and my brain to a new scheme, as I had to for other changes. I acknowledge that an approved change would need to be communicated widely, however. B-unicycling (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure, everything can change, and this proposal would require from a lot of people to change tagging behavior, what for? Where is the benefit? —Dieterdreist (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

See Rationale 2 and 3. B-unicycling (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

2 is something I would not overemphasize, I have taken part in this discussion and from my memory it was a most a handful of people complaining about this, and (3) is just a description, not an explanation why it would be an actual problem. --Dieterdreist (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Looking into it (I even had the site_type page temporarily amended), I cannot confirm this other usage. It is neither documented, nor significant (the example tag you cited is used 14 times in the whole world and is undocumented). There is the tag site=* that is used in combination with Relation:site. So basically the rationale is not standing up.--Dieterdreist (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe the overpass query under Rationale 3 didn't work for you, but it shows 20550 nodes, 1080 ways and 124 relations to me which is significantly higher than 14. B-unicycling (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --HirschKauz (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --KoiAndBlueBird (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- Diacritic (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. what about sites which are known but no archeological work was done yet? I guess that this tag family is already not supposed to be used in such cases --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I would think that at least 98% of sites with historic=archaeological_site are not excavated. The knowledge of them being there is in itself information for historians and archaeologists. The archaeology is there, even without any digging. How would we even know with the 40,000 estimated ringforts in Ireland which ones are excavated? B-unicycling (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. I think that in this case name change is overall beneficial and breakage caused by this will not be very significant (though not fully sure and I am not an expert in this topic) --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering. B-unicycling (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --Dafadllyn (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --快乐的老鼠宝宝 (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. I agree that all the keys with "type" aren't very helpful and that the proposed makes the hierarchy clearer.--501ghost (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Cristoffs (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Adamant1 (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --JB (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I'm not convinced that using the same sub-category tag for different main keys is enough of a problem to change a key that is already in heavy use. I don't understand Rationale 2. It's unclear what the proposed "changing" involves. Just rewriting wiki pages? How? Deprecation of site_type? Mass edits to change to the new tag? --Lonvia (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Point 3 convinced me, the proposed tag avoid that kind of ambiguity. --Kioska Journo 14:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Casey boy (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Reino Baptista (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Tordanik 22:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. --Geonick (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC) I appreciate the idea but I don't see how the new proposal gives new means to differentiate further. On the other hand it breaks current usage.
• I approve this proposal. --Ivanbranco (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Same as Lonvia. If we could design the tagging scheme from scratch, I would prefer archaeological_site=* over site_type=*. But now that it's already in wide use, it's too late to change. This would lead to a mess in the data, broken applications, mass edits, all kinds of things we don't want. And there's no benefit at all. The new tag would mean exactly the same as the old tag, and it would even be harder to type in due to its length and difficult spelling. As to part 2 of your rationale: So you are planning to deprecate fortification_type=*, settlement_type=*, castle_type=*, milestone_type=* etc as well? That makes it even worse. What's next? Replace castle_type=* with castle=*, artwork_type= with artwork=*, and so on? There's nowhere to stop. As to part 3 of your rationale: Come on, site_type=parking has 14 instances. This is just a tagging error. Are you seriously trying to take an undocumented tag with 14 instances as a justification to deprecate well-documented tags with 119000 instances? That's not only ridiculous, it's criminal! --Fkv (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I've set the part of the text in the rationale bold which you seem to have overlooked which has led you to accuse me of criminal behaviour. B-unicycling (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You are now admitting that you can't provide any reasonable examples for your claims. Your overpass link reveals all kinds of tagging errors. Create a Maproulette challenge and they will be gone soon. --Fkv (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Good of you to identify the problem and the solution. Maybe you have the time to create the Maproulette challenge, because I don't know how to do that, and I already spent a week tidying values for site_type in preparation for this. B-unicycling (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no time for that. --Fkv (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --Lyx (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. While a 'universal' word gives more utility to be used elsewhere, archaeological sites don't share many values with other things, so more restrictive words here are better . --Warin61 (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --TheBlackMan (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)