Talk:Tag:site type=minilith

Definition?

Apart from your 12 nodes, there's only one instance of this tag in OSM data. This doesn't seem to qualify for the status "in use". Can you at least explain what a minilith is? The current definition (a small stone that has been used to construct an alignment) doesn't sound specific to archaeological sites. Think of stones around a flowerbed or park path. If you want to exclude those because they are not ancient enough, you need to add a minimum age to your definition, which makes it even more arbitrary. --Fkv (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't set the status. Even so, please point me at documentation stating the minimum number of uses to qualify for "in use." Explanation can be found at the link already given on the page, which gives the ages for the ones I mapped as late neolithic to early bronze age. But archaeological sites are whatever archaeologists say they are: they can be quite recent. No archaeologist has yet stated an interest in the stones in my garden, or proclaimed them to be of archaeological significance, but archaeologists have declared miniliths to be archaeological sites. For example, Lanacombe 5 is Historic England's Scheduled Monument 1014277, meaning that it is a nationally important archaeological site and protected by law. --Brian de Ford (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

You did set the status when you created the page. You included the template "ValueDescription" with the parameter "status=In use". If you omitted the parameter, it would be shown as "undefined" (which, of course, wouldn't look any better). There is no clear definition for what is "in use", but it normally means that it has been used by many mappers and on hundreds of instances. I once asked in the tagging mailing list what the status "de-facto" means, but I am not aware of any discussion on what "in use" means. All I can see is one comment in Template_talk:ValueDescription#status.3Dinuse_vs_status.3Ddefacto. The standardized way to introduce a new tag is to create a proposal. The status then is "proposed", and at that stage you don't need to bother what "in use" means. While a proposal page documents proposed usage and meaning, a feature page documents actual usage and meaning of the tag in OSM data. You can't document that when nobody has used it so far. Of course, you can document how you are using it yourself, but as soon as other users start using this tag, it may quickly turn into a completely different direction, particularly if the documentation is ambiguous or incomprehensible.

The link to the Exmoor project cannot substitute for a definition. Nobody wants to read dozens of PDF pages to get an idea what this is all about. You need a concise definition, preferably with one or a few instructive photos. Also consider that external webpages may change at any time, and that this wiki is multilingual. How are translators supposed to deal with a weblink to a monolingual webpage? Such a link is fine as an additional resource, but not as an integral part of the definition.

What were this stones used for? Was there any benefit in aligning them? Maybe it was just children playing? When I was a kid, we sometimes played with stones too. If these stones had been there for thousands of years, wouldn't they have got disaligned by erosion and bioturbation?

--Fkv (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't remember setting the status. If I did, then I did. You appear to be splitting hairs over the meaning of "in use" purely for the sake of argument. It has been used by (according to you) two people and the meaning is documented. No other status is more appropriate, as far as I can see. BTW, I didn't create a new tag, I created a new value for an existing tag after discussing it with one of the people behind the only map (as far as I know) which does anything with site_type=*.

The link to the Exmoor project is the closest thing available to a definition for those who are interested. If you wish to write a Wikipedia page about miniliths then be my guest and add the link to the site_type=minilith page. The concise definition I wrote is sufficient for most of those who are looking for the appropriate value to use with an archaeological site they wish to map to decide if site_type=minilith is what they want or not. Those who are unsure can follow the Exmoor link. There were no instructive photos free of copyright that I could find when I wrote the description. I just found some photos I don't recall seeing before, but they are not very instructive.

The fact that you do not know what these stones were used for and cannot be bothered to read the link I already gave you to Historic England's listing (which answers your question) is your problem. If you bothered to read either the Exmoor Project link ir the link I provided in my response you'd have answers to your question about disalignment. In fact, if you'd even bothered to read the description about the typical size, you'd be able to figure out the answer. In fact, if you'd even bothered reading my response to you pointing out that Historic England had listed them as scheduled monuments from the bronze age or earlier, making them protected by law as nationally important archaeological sites you wouldn't have repeated your inane comment about the stones you played with as a child.

At the time I created it there was no suitable value of site_type=* for these objects that would not have been highly misleading. I am happy with site_type=minilith and its definition, as is one of the people at the Historic Places project. If that person doesn't have a problem with it, I don't see why you should. --Brian de Ford (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The appropriate status would be "proposed", in conjunction with a proposal. You expect me to spend time to read a third-party webpage with multiple PDFs, each of which has dozens of pages, while you yourself don't even care to answer my questions (last paragraph in my previous comment). Maybe you would answer my questions if you could... You've never ever seen a minilith yourself, have you? If you had, you would have taken a photo for sure. All you can come up with is that link to a local research project by 2 cities that Non-English people can't even pronounce. Keep in mind that OSM is an international project. Same goes for "Historic England" (what's that?) and "scheduled monuments" (scheduled for Fridays?): Nobody outside England knows what you are talking about. You need to provide a definition that non-English people can understand.

I wouldn't have started this discussion if I weren't into mapping historic objects myself. I have contributed hundreds if not thousands of them, and that makes me curious about these miniliths that I had never heard of. If they exist in England, maybe they exist elsewhere too? Maybe even in my own country? But to understand what I have to watch out for, I need to know what it is. "Aligned stones smaller than 20 cm" is a lousy definition. You think that my comment on the stones I played with as a child is inane? I'd rather say that it is inane to declare these stones an archaeological site! Your definition is broken, you need to eleborate on it. That's why you should have written a proposal in the first place. A proposal gets you feedback by many other users.

As long as nobody knows what your tag means, nobody will ever use it, or they will use it for other things. You are proud of the one instance in Japan? A look at the aerial image and the Google translation of its name may bring you down to earth.

--Fkv (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)