The content on this page from "Overview map" onwards seems to be specific to a particular part of Germany, and only applies to certain types of archaeological site. However, it could currently be interpreted as though it is a general scheme that is more widely used and recommended. This is potentially confusing to readers.
I do not particularly want to remove it. Partly because it is presumably of value to those who are interested in those sites in that area, and partly because it provides an example to others who may want to extend this scheme to cover their own areas of interest, rather than inventing yet another, different, detailed tagging scheme.
With the aim of making this page more accessible to the general reader, what are the views on the advantages and disadvantages of:
a) Leaving this content in place, but adapting the labelling and wording to make it more clear to readers that this an example of one scheme that contributors might find useful in certain circumstances, rather than a general scheme that always applies to archaeological sites
b) Moving the content under "Overview map" and "mapping" to a separate page (but still linked from here, as an example of a detailed scheme for some archaeological sites.)
c) just removing the content under "Overview map" and "mapping" from the English version (it remains in the German version)
d) Leavings things as they stand
--Peter Reed 09:06, 11 May 2011 (BST)
Hi Peter, I don't see sooo much difference. The page is intended to be of general use, so feel free to adapt and complement the content (your proposal a).--Federico Explorador (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
How to tag the date when the archaelological site was habited/used?--Capiscuas 15:57, 2 April 2012 (BST)
What is missing or to improve
- I miss a key tag for cave and rock paintings. Both of these are needed features for mapping archaeological sites. Otherwise there is no way to map the the Rock Art of the Mediterranean Basin on the Iberian Peninsula . I propose (+1) site_type=cave_rock_painting; see Wikipedia--Federico Explorador (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC) +1Agustin 12:32, 16 Oct 2015.
- I also miss a clear distinction to the tag historic=ruins. When we should use this or that key?
With regards ruins I tend to tag anything that instinctively looks like a ruin. That is to say something that has fallen down, in whole or part, and is no longer used. For Carew Castle (see link), for example, I would tag most of it with 'historic=ruins' or 'historic=castle'+'ruins=yes', but the part in the centre which is roofed I would tag as 'historic=castle'. Thinking about it I would just tag anything without a roof as ruins, and with a roof not as ruins.
- All _type suffixes should be removed from the keys. These suffixes don't mean anything, they are just annoying. --Fkv (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
"non-obvious unexcavated sites should not be tagged as to do so could encourage damage from treasure hunters."
Should this always be the case? I'm currently mapping archaeological sites in Britain such as medieval moats. Although these are little known to the general public, they cannot really be considered at risk. They all can be found on OS maps etc and are well recorded and available online and in books. This means that by mapping them on OSM there is virtually no chance of there being an increased threat from treasure hunters etc. Not to mention the fact that they're almost all on private property and do not contain any 'treasure'.
I can however see the merit of not tagging these sites in places where there is a real risk; Ancient Egyptian site for example where this is already a problem.
I strongly oppose this kind of self-censorship. I reeks of hypocrisy. It is the obvious choice of any individual to go and destroy anything and it is his moral responsibility. I hate this approach that we should refrain of doing something because someone else might misuse it. On the other hand it is everyone's choice if he wants to map something or not. So in this particular case, map it, if you want. Chrabros (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Stones in Stone Circles
Hello all, how should individual stones in stone circles be tagged? As "megalith type=menhir" or "megalith type=stone circle"? Any thoughts? I will say that like "megalith type=stone circle" but by the way I find more problematic the fact of labelling menhirs without decoration like natural=stone. This makes not sense to me, an standing stone lifted by humans is by definition the contrary of a natural stone.Agustin 12:33, 16 Oct 2015 --Abc26324 14:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)