On 05/09/2018, Donal Hunt <donal.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringfort > > In Irish language <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_language> sources > they are known by a number of names: *ráth* (anglicised *rath*), *lios* > (anglicised *lis*; cognate with Cornish > > (...) > > Based on the above definitions, nodes should tagged with ring_fort but > detailed mapping could use ráth and lios.
From that wikipedia article it seems that ráth is just the irish word for ringfort, there doesn't seem to be added information ? For ráth vs lios, see below. I don't care much about ring_fort vs ringfort, but the later is what's currently in the db and wiki. > I assume a relation tagged with > ringfort would be appropriate for locations that have the ráth and lios > mapped. The distinction between ráth (the actual ring) and lios (the inner area) is interesting, but I couldn't find any mapping that made that distinction. Similarly, we rarely map the building walls separately from the building rooms. The vast majority of ringforts are mapped as ways. The ~10 that are mapped as relations seem to be so because a townland boundary follows a portion of the ring. If we want to do detailed mapping, there are some characteristics that we could identify: * does it use (at least some) stones or just earth ? See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthworks_(archaeology). The wiki's tagging scheme starts with usage (fortification), we could refine further with nature (earthwork). * Has it been razed ? In my reviews I found a lot of ringforts that got flattened (typically for agricultural reasons) but that are still visible as ground discoloration on imagery. I don't want to start an "abandoned railway" debate, but I guess there's a whole spectrum of "still exists". * height, public access, signposted, paid access, etc. How about ringfort_type=rath/caiseal/dun/razed to differentiate between earth, stone, large, and destroyed ringforts ? Dun Aengus (on Aran More) is currently tagged as 'historic=castle castle_type=defensive'. Should we switch it to the above-mentioned scheme ? Any other comparable fort we should look at ? > p.s. I have no other knowledge / opinion other that want I've read above. I > do think they are cool and worth mapping. 50,000 is a lot of work!!! ~2500 done, 47500 to go :) I've got other things on my plate, but from now on I'll try to map ringforts when I stumble upon them. _______________________________________________ Talk-ie mailing list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
