Talk:Proposed features/ogham stone

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Conflict with other stone types?

What about say ogham script on glacial erratic ( )?

Maybe something like ogham_inscription=yes would be better? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Are there any examples of Ogham on stones like that? Rorym (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not aware of them, my sole contact with ogham stones is this proposal. But stone_type seem mixing completely different types of classification Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
When I click on the overpass turbo link provided under your glacial erratic stone map, there are no results in Ireland or along the Irish Sea, so I don't see any room for confusion. There is also no Wiki entry for that tag, so I don't really know why you are bringing it up. Glacial erratic does not sound man made to me either, and as far as my memory of my geography lessons goes, glacial forming would be pre-historic, so again there is no danger of an overlap of terminology. I would hope that all features tagged as historic are man made. B-unicycling (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Generalizing to script=*/writing_system=*?

I really like the idea of having these stones mapped and thank you for describing the background material in detail. What do you think about tagging such stones as historic=stone + script=ogam (using the ISO 15924 script code)? This scheme would address the concerns of Mateusz Konieczny and can still be combined with the other tags mentioned in the proposal. A script tag could be left implicit in most situations, e.g. something with a Latin inscription presumably uses script=latn. — AlephNull (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from with the ISO suggestion. However, I think using the non-standard spelling ogham is much more familiar to the people in Ireland who are going to tag it after all, compare 20 results for name~Ogham on overpass turbo versus 2 (in the UK, and they are actually people's names) for name~Ogam. Unless there is a technical way to "autocorrect" people's edits into script=ogam. I wouldn't know. B-unicycling (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
That makes sense and thank you for answering my question! You're right, using the ISO codes is not be the best option if people don't find it comfortable to use. Just using the name of the writing system should work well then. Usage of such a tag would probably be for more special occasions anyways. For instance, it's not very remarkable that an inscription in China is written in hànzì. And if an inscription is tagged (presumably in Unicode), this value could be derived automatically. So it only really useful in cases where it may be hard to enter the inscription (as is probably the case with Ogham stones, since most phones/computers don't ship with an Ogham keyboard and most people are probably not trained in reading Ogham). – AlephNull (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment on inscription:alphabet=*

The term alphabet does not include the various other types of writing systems (abjads, alphasyllabaries, syllabaries, etc.). Similar to the suggestion above, how about replacing alphabet with writing_system or script? --AlephNull (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

There is not really a need to invent a new tag for different alphabets, we already routinely do add this on name tags: We use the ISO 639 language codes to denote languages and add non-standard scripts using a hyphen according to ISO 15924, e.g. name:sr-Latn is Serbian language in Latin script or name:fr-Arab for French names in Arabic script. pgl and sga are the codes for the old Irish languages Ogham is used for. So, the tag for inscriptions in Ogham letters should be inscription:pgl-Ogam (I'm not familiar enough to tell if pgl or sga is suited). --Mueschel (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Link to Ogham in 3D project

After I started this proposal, I found a research project and website which has quite a bit of information on ogham stones as well as 3D imagery for some of them. Their website uses OSM as well and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Ireland License. It would be good to link from each ogham stone on OSM to their website. I have contacted them and the default URL is (not all of them have a number). If we had a tag ogham_in_3d:ref=* to add the name, the link could be displayed similarly to how the wikipedia or mapillary links work. I am told that they will keep the structure of the links, even when they revamp their website. Since it looks like I have to redo the proposal anyway, I could add that. B-unicycling (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Rather ref:ogham_in_3d:ref=* for coherence but yes. --Nospam2005 (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
and/or something country-specific ref:IE:ogham_in_3d=* ...although there is unlikely to be another 'ogham_in_3d' elsewhere in the world, it's to stop shorter refs being hogged by a country ref:GB:uprn=* would allow for a FR:uprn with a different meaning Jnicho02 (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Not sure, I was about to say the same but I intentionally did not say that as currently the Island is split administratively, so that ref:IE:ogham_in_3d=* would be valid in Derry for instance which is, administratively speaking, part of GB. I'm aware of a proper solution for that but that's outside OSM scope ;-). --Nospam2005 (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I checked their website and they only cover the Republic of Ireland. So yes, the additional country tag makes sense. B-unicycling (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

drop controversial source on object

Hello, please be consensual to the possible, drop the recommendation to put the source tag on the object, it's been years that we can record it on the changeset --Marc marc (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It's valid for all *source* tags. --Nospam2005 (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
So I save after ever item I add? I wasn't aware that that was the procedure. Usually, when I set out to add "just one thing", I end up discovering more unmapped things on the satellite view and I add them in the one go. How would you know then which source refers to what?B-unicycling (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Not necessary after each edit, if you add lets say references, the source will remain the same. If you add references and tune the positions with an aerial imagery, it'll be the same.
If, let's say, you add stones and path, using imagery and, you can simply use one changeset: obviously only the reference will be related to the stones. KISS --Nospam2005 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
What if I use the British War Office map layer, because I have to add the name of a church, Esri Clarity for the outline of the church, wikipedia for information on the Ogham stone that is part of the church? Would it not make sense to use source like a footnote for each historical item added? B-unicycling (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Would you use British War Office map layer for the Ogham stone? Or ESRI Clarity? Probably not, then a source on the changeset is fine. What if you use some material for the stone and somebody adds more info?. Will the source tag be still accurate? --Nospam2005 (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I haven't come across Ogham stones on the British War office map yet, I think. That doesn't mean they're not on it. B-unicycling (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

other already existing stone tags?

I guess there have been discussions on existing tags like Tag:historic=stone but I have to admit that I missed them, so I'm reading the proposal from afresh....and the first thing I think when I see a proposal is "does this really warrant a top-level value? is this a sub-type of something that already exists?". Maybe the Rationale could include a short reason why? Jnicho02 (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This was the first version of this proposal. The subkey that exists (but never was agreed on) is stone_type, and this unfortunate heritage is one of the reasons the first voting failed. --Mueschel (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Version 1.1: changed tags

The initial version for which the vote has been done should be archived for reference.

  • inscription:pgl-Ogam= as it's for ancient Irish written in Ogham alphabet, is there any use case where it wouldn't match the inscription?
  • description=* not a big deal but please consider giving a better illustration: height is already describing the height above ground.
  • source=*, source:inscription=*, source_ref=* please consider moving it to the meta attributes for the changeset. --Nospam2005 (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You can acknowledge the points taken into account in the discussion with {{Resolved}} --Nospam2005 (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm only reading all of these now, for some reason I didn't get notified about changes on the Discussion page. I had reached about whether to edit the proposal or start a new one and I followed the recommendations. That lead to the initial version to be edited.
As far as I know, there are rare cases of stones being inscribed with Ogham and other scripts. I vaguely remember a Time Team episode from the Isle of Man (?) where that was the case. In that case, inscription:pgl-Ogam=* would not match inscription.
You might be misremembering that time team episode. Both the video and the excavation report show only an Ogham inscription on the stone they found. --Lyx (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Do we only give the height above ground then and not the total height, if that information is available? Some of the stones might have some of the writing covered because of rising soil levels over the centuries. I'm not sure what you mean by "better illustration". There are no Ogham stones within my 5km radius (that I know of), so I don't know how I could find the perfect one as an example for the proposal.B-unicycling (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with editing the proposal - better than to start a new one, it's just about seeing the evolution of the proposal. It's not too late to retrieve the old version and archive it, you can also summarize the changes made - like getting rid of the dubious stone_type. Otherwise it looks like the first vote failed, just vote again, which would be weird. Feel free to suspend the vote to take time to take into account the discussion page (by acknowledging - or not - the proposals). The example you give for an inscription=* not matching the inscription:pgl-Ogam=* is a good one, that's what I meant by illustration, call it use case: apparently the term is not valid in English as synonym for example, So for the description you could mention the total height instead of the height about ground for instance. --Nospam2005 (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
The stone_type controversy is documented above the first voting round.
I'm not comfortable with editing the proposal, because that cost me votes before.
I'll see if I can find an example with more than Ogham inscription on it.B-unicycling (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
There are examples with both Ogham and Latin inscriptions, but their linguistic interpretation seems controversial (example), I wouldn't want to go down that rabbit hole, because I am not a Primitive Irish scholar. If they can't decide whether the inscription is in Primitive Irish or Latin, I don't see how I can. I would therefore say, inscription should be used for 1:1 copy of what is on the stone, no transcription of the Ogham into the Latin alphabet. inscription:pgl-Latn should actually only be used if the inscription is in Primitive Irish, but in the Latin alphabet. This is a can of worms.B-unicycling (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


On Talk:Tag:natural=stone, I suggest to use grooves=yes, as Ogham stones are grooved stones, you may want to give your opinion. For clarity, I don't intend to replace historic=ogham_stone, it has IMHO its own justification but if you think it makes sense, then a reference to historic=ogham_stone would be needed. --Nospam2005 (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Since ogham is "grooves in stone with represents writing", it would be implied, wouldn't it? B-unicycling (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)