When mapping complex archaeological sites, such as Tel Megiddo - a World Heritage Site, there is a need to map both the site in general, as an area, and specific locations within it.
It seems reasonable to me that the area is tagged as historic=archaeological_site.
When historic=archaeological_site tag is also used for nodes representing specific locations within the site, the result is a cluster of many archaeological sites within an archaeological site.
My questions are:
What is the appropriate tagging for specific archaeological locations within a complex archaeological site?
Is it appropriate to use a relation in order to associate the specific archaeological location nodes with the area way of the site in general?
A fascinating question: I dont have a good answer to this, other than look around the world to see how it’s been done elsewhere.
Here are a few examples:
Stonehenge area. A mix of individual features & collections of features mapped as archaelogical_site. In practice the whole area is one archaeological site and would benefit from a a cleaner hierarchy of tagging of the relevant finds. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.1788/-1.8233
I think it may be worthwhile repeating this question on OSM Help. It may engender greater interest.
There is clearly scope to start working out a more systematic approach & any site where someone has good knowledge (and preferably convenient access) is a good place to refine the tagging.
Interestingly, in Machu Picchu, there is both an archaeological_site area, and an archaeological_site node.
The specific locations within the site are tagged with tourism=attraction.
The tourism=attraction tagging could be inappropriate for a complex archaeological site which is not a significant touristic attraction.