Talk:Tag:historic=boundary stone

Modern boundary stones

How to tag modern (not historic) boundary stones? I mean stones which mark the currently valid boundary. --*Martin* (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There is boundary=marker and marker=borderstone. Both tags are documented in the wiki and well used. Map HeRo (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Non stone boundary markers

How tag historic boundary markers not of stone. In my example cast iron? Iccaldwell (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Use material=cast_iron. --Zermes (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Boundary MARKER is a better word for boundary (mile)stone. --Henke54 (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• key : boundary=marker, and with a historic boundary marker,simply add ; historic=yes
• http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/sJ8
• https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=59721
• https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=664167#p664167

Rendering

Add a rendering section, like some other pages here have.

In fact it would be good to know where the border stones lie, so one can watch their step when near international boundaries. Jidanni (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jidanni: It is far more efficient to add section than add many talk sections asking to add render section Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was worried I might offend somebody. So it'd be best to leave it up to others. Jidanni (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Tourism

Mention what to do about border markers that take on dual roles: also as tourist attractions. Jidanni (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, tag them also as tourism attractions. Mentioning this on every single page is not a good idea Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Add "normal" tag to "historic"?

Should historic=boundary_stone be accompanied by a non-historic tag like natural=stone or boundary=marker? If I understand the definition right, boundary=marker is to some degree opposite to historic=boundary_stone, as they either refer to modern or historic boundary stones. --GerdHH (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, historical border stones are tagged with historic=boundary_stone, and modern border stones are tagged with boundary=marker + marker=stone. A node that is tagged with historic=boundary_stone should not be tagged with boundary=marker or marker=stone at the same time.

My understanding is that while historic=boundary_stone might be understood as a shorter way of tagging boundary=marker + marker=stone + historic=yes, this is not equivalent. historic=boundary_stone is intended for an old border stone that is not part of a modern border, while boundary=marker + marker=stone + historic=yes is intended for a border stone that is historically significant but still part of a modern border. (That such tags are being used inconsistently is not a good excuse for repeating mistakes. :-) Biff (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Historic boundary stones and boundary relations

It took me more than a second to understand the meaning of this sentence: "The boundary stone node can be placed on top of a node or way of a boundary relation but should not be merged with it". I think that it is intended to mean that a node of a way that is a member of a boundary relation can be tagged as a historic boundary stone. (I don't think it would be possible to place two nodes in the same place. They are automatically merged, at least when using iD.) The sentence appears to say that this node should not be made a separate member of the boundary relation. Ok, but who would do that? I have only seen ways as members of boundary relations. Is there any place where (modern) boundary markers are members of a boundary relation? This is not specified in Relation:boundary. Maybe the sentence can be simplified to "It is allowed to tag a node as a historic boundary stone, even if this node belongs to a way that is a member of a boundary relation."? Biff (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)