I suspect that some of these are settlement first; defensive second, and some (I'm thinking of some of the more extreme promontory forts) are the other way around.
It's definitely worth someone having a think about the tree of other tags associated with "historic" and especially "historic=archaeological_site", because as it stands things are a bit confusing.
https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L7126-L7290 currently covers how I'm handling it, but I bet filling in more details in some cases (such as the civilization for settlements) would be really helpful.

Hello,
I'm guessing that way/1135419642 should perhaps be "designation=public_footpath"?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
By changing this from the tag that people knew about to one that they don't it means that features like this disappear off maps again (or rather - see http://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#18/54.37823/-1.96709 - fall back to be shown as a generic archaeological site).

Obviously these sorts of things becoming more known as defended settlements (often constructed in a "look at me" kind of way). They are very definitely still "defended fortifications" as well as settlements though.

Is it really too much to ask that rendering-breaking tag changes like this are at least mentioned somewhere first? https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/general/tagging/70 or maybe https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/help-and-support/tagging/71 would be a good place to mention it; you can also contact any advertised data consumers from e.g. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/archaeological_site#projects - if you click through to the project from there you'll be able to e.g. raise a github issue.
Best Regards,
Andy

For the benefit of anyone else looking at this changeset, I've asked slice0 what evidence there is https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/165672226 should be secondary rather than tertiary.
I've also suggested in fairly strong terms that slice0#s attitude to the rest of the Au community needs to change (see e.g. the profile text and diary entries at @slice0/diary ).
Best Regards,
Andy (from the DWG)

Is the name on e.g. way/47264259/history correct? The loc_ref and name are both letters, but different.

For info I've asked about the provenance of this data at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/odd-data-source-falkland-islands/107317 .

Hello,
Just for info, I've changed the "historic=churchyard cross" at node/9700823427 here to "historic=cross" . Searching https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic#values for "cross" doesn't find a better option (except maybe something like "memorial"?).
It was the only example.
Hope you don;t mind (and any other questions, please ask!)
Best Regards,
Andy

The changeset selection was "user_id = '5008136' and tags -> 'comment' like 'shop=estate_agent -> office=estate_agent #maproulette%';" - sorry if any other changes got caught up. I did notice way/327309216/history which I guess might be an estate agent rather than just a property company office (and you're more likely to know than me).

Hello,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 10(!) years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on way/191593922 (and also on another change too). We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 4 years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on way/777209203 (and also on another change too). We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 6(!) years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on way/507631409 (and also on another change too). We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 7(!) years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on way/228759987 (and also on a couple of other changes too). We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 10(!) years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on way/248314290 (and also on a couple of other changes too). We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,

On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on way/409026688 . We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Thanks!

Hello,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 10(!) years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on way/10332802 . We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 12(!) years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on way/94254996 . We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Thanks

Thanks

Thanks!