Coat of arms, not "stone".

Here in Spain, some villages display a big amount of coats of arms in building façades. These coats of arms work as a tourist attraction and, according to “Atlas histórico de la Rioja”, seem to be protected by a 1960s law.

I’ve found the coat_of_arms tag as part of historical=stone stone=coat_of_arms, but it seems to be oriented to milestone-like monuments, like menhirs and stellae.

Not knowing a better tag, I’m using it, but, do you suggest some better tag to use?


According to TagInfo, there are 72 occurrences of historic=coat_of_arms. And if they are real tourist attractions, you could add tourism=attraction as well.

I think there must be at least 72 in the town of Trujillo alone. I have photos of a few, but have never thought of tagging them. My general view is that these are parts of the building: often the carved stone will be set above a doorway. I’m all for tagging them, but I think that in general they are an integral part of the building & if there is tourist interest it will be in the building itself, rather than the shield. Many historic buildings will have many parts which are noteworthy to the same degree: corbels, doorway & window surrounds, pilasters, chimneys etc.

See this photoof Pissaro’s palace in Trujillo, which not only has a highly noteworthy coat of arms in a sufficiently prominent place but lots of other interesting architectural features.

So this is just a plea to consider the longer term practicality of mapping such details (I hate to think how many exist in Cambridge for instance).

One last thing I think it makes sense to try & always capture the material (generally material=stone, but on modern buildings possibly material=concrete).

Hi, SK53.
My idea came from the fact some old buildings have only some remarkable element protected by law, such as door or coat of arms. Obviously, for the cases where the entire building is remarkable, mapping the shields has no sense.