Feature proposal - RFC - Historic

General talk Tagging general discussion
, , , ,
21

“an archaeological_site does not have to be excavated, it is a site regardless of excavation or exploration”

Maybe it’s a language thing or something unique to how OSM defines the term, but in English the “archeology” generally means “the study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and the analysis of artifacts and other physical remains.” So I don’t see how it can be an archeological site if there is no excavation of the site happening. Related to that, confirming that something is a suspected archeological site doesn’t make it one. Nor would that warrant the area being tagged as such IMO. There would have to be something actually happening at the site beyond someone just writing a journal article about it or whatever.

Although I’ll grant you that the Wiki article for historic=archaeological_site is rather ambiguous in that regard. For instance “The tag [historic=archaeological_site is not restricted to excavations, but should also encompass all visible ancient monuments” makes it sound like the tag can be used on any old monument regardless of if it’s currently being/has been studied or not. But I do think that goes against the definition of what makes something an “archeological site.”

22

| Adamant1
October 13 |

  • | - |

“an archaeological_site does not have to be excavated, it is a site regardless of excavation or exploration”

Maybe it’s a language thing or something unique to how OSM defines the term, but in English the “archeology” generally means “the study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and the analysis of artifacts and other physical remains.”

Maybe you should look into more dictionaries? Maybe the “and” in this sentence is not to be taken mathematically and means “and or”? Wikipedia says:

Archaeology or archeology[a] is the scientific study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture. The archaeological record consists of artifacts, architecture, biofacts or ecofacts, sites, and cultural landscapes. Archaeology can be considered both a social science and a branch of the humanities.[1][2] In Europe it is often viewed as either a discipline in its own right or a sub-field of other disciplines, while in North America archaeology is a sub-field of anthropology.[3]

So I don’t see how it can be an archeological site if there is no excavation of the site happening.

any “tell” or tumulus or ruins of a temple, or ruins of an ancient city or something similar (just to name the more prominent examples) are archaeological sites, excavation will typically be necessary, but it is not a requirement, it depends on climate and other conditions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra#/media/File:Treasury_petra_crop.jpeg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acropolis_of_Athens#/media/File:The_Acropolis_of_Athens_viewed_from_the_Hill_of_the_Muses_(14220794964).jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colosseum#/media/File:Colosseo_2020.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castel_Sant%27Angelo#/media/File:Chateau-saint-ange-tibre.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pont_du_Gard#/media/File:Pont_du_Gard_BLS.jpg

there are also archaeological sites under the sea.

Related to that, confirming that something is a suspected archeological site doesn’t make it one. Nor would that warrant the area being tagged as such IMO.

it depends how strong is the suspicion, I would leave this question to archaeologists and take their word for granted.

For instance “The tag [historic=archaeological_site is not restricted to excavations, but should also encompass all visible ancient monuments” makes it sound like the tag can be used on any old monument regardless of if it’s currently being/has been studied or not. But I do think that goes against the definition of what makes something an “archeological site.”

I agree there could technically be a problem, maybe, if there was a site that would qualify but is not used in scientific study (yet) although I do not have the impression it is an actual problem. All sites have sooner or later been studied or scheduled to be studied by some archaeologist, there are so many of them :slight_smile:

Cheers,

Martin

23

merriam-webster “the scientific study of material remains (such as tools, pottery, jewelry, stone walls, and monuments) of past human life and activities.” Also, “the remains of the culture of a people.” Maybe that definition would work, but then literally anything would be an archeological site. Therefore making the tag essentially useless.

collinsdictionary “the study of the societies and peoples of the past by examining the remains of their buildings, tools, and other objects.”

britannica “a science that deals with past human life and activities by studying the bones, tools, etc., of ancient people.”

Even the definition you provided from Wikipedia says “Archaeology or archeology [[a]] is the scientific study of human activity through the recovery and [analysis] of [material culture].”

I don’t see how those definitions contract my first one. All of them require the recovery “and” analysis of artifacts. Maybe your right that “and” is an “or” but it would be impossible for someone to analyze an artifact that they haven’t recovered first. Obviously.

I would leave this question to archaeologists and take their word for granted.

I don’t have an issue with that in theory, are you seriously suggesting that people using the tag are actual archaeologists though? lol.

All sites have sooner or later been studied or scheduled to be studied by some archaeologist, there are so many of them

Sure. I don’t disagree that all sites will sooner or later be studied by some archaeologists, but I consider mapping that information as a form of “mapping a non-exiting feature” or whatever. Which there’s general agreement we shouldn’t be doing. I’d probably be fine with something like a archeological_site=proposed tag, but even then a lot of times funding gets cut for archeological projects and they never happen. I doubt such a tag would get off the ground with how the main tag is currently defined anyway though :roll_eyes:

Regards,

Adamant1

24


|
|

  • | - |

merriam-webster “the scientific study of material remains (such as tools, pottery, jewelry, stone walls, and monuments) of past human life and activities.” Also, “the remains of the culture of a people.”

this seems more reasonable

Maybe that definition would work, but then literally anything would be an archeological site. Therefore making the tag essentially useless.

no, because you have to interpret this in context, with common knowledge up your sleeves.
As always, there will be edge cases, and there is also for example the field of “industrial archaeology”, and while the people engaged there may be seen as archaeologists, the sites likely wouldn’t be considered archaeological sites in OSM.

collinsdictionary “the study of the societies and peoples of the past by examining the remains of their buildings, tools, and other objects.”

britannica “a science that deals with past human life and activities by studying the bones, tools, etc., of ancient people.”

Even the definition you provided from Wikipedia says “Archaeology or archeology [[a]] is the scientific study of human activity through the recovery and [analysis] of [material culture].”

yes, these are all fine, and none of them excludes sites that haven’t been excavated.

Sure. I don’t disagree that all sites will sooner or later be studied by some archaeologists, but I consider mapping that information as a form of “mapping a non-exiting feature” or whatever.

I understand this point of view, you say that only through the work on an archaeologist the site will become an archaeological site, while another point of view could be, that any site that would be interesting for an archaeologist to study can be seen as an archaeological site. As I said, for my practical mapping it doesn’t make a difference, because I only map sites that have been confirmed by an archaeologist (usually they have been studied by many of them), there are signs and info boards, etc., and there is not much questioning about the “validity”. In some occasions I have been mapping sites that aren’t directly visible as such, because after some exploration they have been recovered with soil.

cheers.

Martin

25

Archaeolical site, regardless the meaning in various dictionaries, it reached the point which roughly means “anything old that is no longer being used”. This encapsulated anything from pre-history to even 100 years before today.
For example, in Greece we have 3 types of archaeological authorities, Ephorate of Antiquities, Ephorate of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Antiquities and Ephorate of Newer Monuments.

In my city, there’s a preserved building which I have tagged as historic=barracks and its general space as historic=archaeological_site, even if it isn’t an excavated area like with Pompeii. If it’s proper tagging or not I’m not certain, but it’s the closest I came up with in order to map them as they are.

26

I don’t necessarily disagree with Martin’s interpretation of the tag in theory. I think it has some problems in relation to my original example of the town that’s under the lake though. Just in the county where I live there’s like 68 “historic” towns. Some still have evidence that they existed, some don’t. None of them are currently being studied by archeologists to any meaningful degree. At least not that I’m aware of.

In the meantime from what I’ve seen mappers in California generally prefer to tag historic towns with place=isolated_dwelling. The town under the lake being tagged as an archeological site seems to be an exception. Personally I prefer to tag historic towns as historic:place=whatever. We can cite dictionary definitions and Martin can go off all day about how we should take the word of non-exiting archaeologists who aren’t the ones doing the mapping, but it doesn’t settle the fundamental issue of when to use historic=archaeological_site on a historic location and when not to.

Personally, I think there’s value in differentiating between a pseudo historical town that is basically a fish bowl versus one that’s actually historic and is currently being excavated or at least studied in some meaningful way. It also feels a little diminutive to consider a town from the 1940s that was intentionally covered in water as analogous in how we tag and define it to say a 2,000 year old indigenous religious site. At that point, if I find a coin from the early 1900s in my back yard I could map it as an archaeological site and it would be in the same league as Stonehenge. Not to say there should be some arbitrary line in the sand about it either though. I’d just like the tags definition to be fleshed out a little more beyond Martin’s idea that it should encompass literally everything regardless of the period of the site, if there’s any actual archeological going on there, or apparently really any other criteria.

27

In the meantime from what I’ve seen mappers in California generally prefer to tag historic towns with place=isolated_dwelling.

there are 4 place=ghost_town, not really used but maybe it could make sense? isolated dwelling means there is still someone living (so this could be true as well, if it is almost abandoned but not completely)

The town under the lake being tagged as an archeological site seems to be an exception. Personally I prefer to tag historic towns as historic:place=whatever.

I wouldn’t probably use it here, but it could be justified. There is significant usage of t documented abandoned:place=*

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Aabandoned%3Aplace

28

we also tag a city that was founded in the 20th century the same as one that is there for some thousand years. There are additional tags that should be put on archaeological sites, for example historic:civilization, so that a distinction is possible.

I do not say it should encompass everything, I believe there may be many edge cases and it could be hard to find a suitable criterion, while I believe mappers generally will use the term sensibly and not tag their backyard as archaeological site when they find a 1904 coin (maybe more difficult if they find a 800 years old waste deposit in their basement, although these small findings in private medieval basements usually are not tagged with the archaeological site tag, it could in theory apply, but then these are roughly seen as “everything in the old part of the settlement is an archaeologically interesting site, so we do not tag any of it”, e.g. a friend of mine has a stone cut basement from pre-roman times, but his neighbours do as well Calcata - Wikipedia ). There are also archaeological sites, by the way, that are tagged with other tags, it can happen with all those sites that are covered by a more specific “historic” value and could be seen “sites”, for example citywalls, city gates, tombs, monasteries, ruins, roman_road, tower, cemetery, quarry, aqueduct, granary, … (not saying all of them are in all cases archaeological sites, but there is some overlap).

29

To add an example to the confusion: the well-known bridge of Avignon is tagged as “ruins” even though it is restored and (though incomplete) and now in perfect condition. Besides that, the whole thing and its surroundings are much more an archeological site, where excavation and analysis is still going on. The whole previous archeological process has been filmed. I guess it’s tagged as ruins to match the many actual ruins/attractions in and around Avignon.

30

I have been there this year and can confirm it is both, a bridge in ruins (most parts are missing, leading nowhere) and a well restored, visitable, archaeological site (or several of them, if you consider the entrance, the chapel, etc. distinct sites). Nesting of archaeologial sites is often a suitable method, and there is nothing forbidding it.

31

I disagree about the ruins! Missing parts do not, I think, make it a ruin. They are completely removed, and what remains is completely restored.

32

think a second time :slight_smile:
A building without a roof, perfectly restored, for sure is not a building any more. For ruins it is completely normal that they are preserved or even partially restored, if they are sufficiently significant to justify it. Think about the colosseum in Rome, clearly ruins and obviously intensely looked after and restored.

A bridge that now stops in the middle of the river it was supposed to cross, because the rest has broken away, is in ruins.

Saying otherwise is like pretending you still have a knife if all you got is a handle, which is well preserved and restored :wink:

Cheers,

Martin

33

From the images I’ve seen it looks like they repurposed the bridge into a pier. It’s not like people can’t adopt an old structure for use in a different purpose or that doing so makes the new thing ruins. Like no one considers say LxFactory in Lisboa, Portugal ruins just because it was a manufacturing plant in the 1800s. At the end of the day there’s nothing wrong with tagging something that’s repurposed as whatever it’s been repurposed into.

In this case I’d tag the “bridge” as pier and call it good there. Tagging it as ruins doesn’t really seem to impart anything useful anyway. Especially since it’s been restored. People looking for ruins in OSM likely want to find destroyed or disintegrated historical landmarks IRL, and a restored bridge doesn’t really fit that depending on how much restoration work has happened. I doubt anyone wants to play “count the age of the bricks” or whatever to find out how much of the “bridge” is actually authentic versus rebuilt either.

34

At the end of the day there’s nothing wrong with tagging something that’s repurposed as whatever it’s been repurposed into.

In this case I’d tag the “bridge” as pier and call it good there.

and tell the people to sing a different song?

35

I’m not sure what’s a reference to, but I was simply giving my opinion about it. At the end of the day I could really care less how it’s tagged though. Let alone what song the people are singing or whatever.

36

dieterdreist:

and tell the people to sing a different song?

I’m not sure what’s a reference to, but I was simply giving my opinion about it.

the song of the people dancing on the Avignon bridge is very popular amongst European children, everybody knows it. Also the bridge is very famous, it is a world heritage site, calling it a pier instead of a bridge is outrageously ridiculous.

37

OK. Good for the European children, I guess :man_shrugging: I’m sure they would survive if the “bridge” is tagged as a pier, but whatever. Sure, lets think of the children though. This whole thing is rather pedantic, but superficially speaking a pier is a type of bridge and it’s not like there aren’t famous or historically important piers out there either. So I really don’t get what your issue is. Especially since I said it was just a suggestion, one that I don’t ultimately care about either way. Be my guest and tag the “bridge” however you want. I could really care less.

38

This whole thing is rather pedantic, but superficially speaking a pier is a type of bridge and it’s not like there aren’t famous or historically important piers out there either. So I really don’t get what your issue is.

I don’t question that piers can be important, thing is that if we are to call it “pier” it will be 4 piers, each arch is a pier. Although this is a different kind of pier than the man_made=pier definition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pier_(architecture)

The fact that the term is actually used for the individual arches of the bridge makes it quite unsuitable and confusing to refer to the whole

Especially since I said it was just a suggestion, one that I don’t ultimately care about either way. Be my guest and tag the “bridge” however you want. I could really care less.

then don’t engage in discussions about it.

Cheers Martin

39

OK.

I don’t necessarily disagree with that. Although I doubt most map consumers would get the difference or care.

Let me clarify and say I cared about a little bit up to the point of responding to Peter Elderson’s comment. I completely stopped caring about it once you responded to my original comment, got defensive, and turned this into a pedantic exercise in xenophobic style lecturing. Hopefully that clarifies things :+1:

40

A pier is a bridge without an other side. If I didn’t know the song and the history, I would map the Avignon bridge as a pier and a tourist attraction, and certainly not as ruins. If I didn’t know the song and the name, but I knew the history, I would still call it a pier and add some historic value other than ruins. Now that I know the song, the name and the history, I can live with bridge, though I think it’s now a pier. Historic=ruins is misplaced, I think. I don’t know a more fitting value for a perfectly restored half-bridge that was once a full bridge, though most of the time in ruins between repairs. And it’s certainly an archeological site, even today, with a museum, findings displays and audio-guided tours.
And you can dance on it, too. I did that.

1 Like