Hi Lars,

starting a new thread. 

The exact definition of a monument depends by country. We go with the definition that the national government is using - they usually recognize monumental objects. Which category(ies) you want to use, depends on your situation, and you can make a choice there. I suggest you discuss that with the local volunteers and on the project. The common remark: do whatever works best in your country. 



2011/4/1 Lars Aronsson <lars@aronsson.se>
On March 28, Tomasz Kozłowski wrote:
> Some users on the Polish Wikipedia have already started adding
> coordinates to monuments located near their locations (example:
> <http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Tommy_Jantarek/Zabytki_wielkopolski>).

I'm sorry for being a little behind on this project.

Do we have or do we need a clear definition of
what "monunments" are? Apparently memorial stones,
statues, and buildings. But only man-made things?
Or also remarkable trees and cliffs? Should also
entire gardens or cities be included in the lists?

Is the castle of Versailles one monument or a
large system of many monuments? Is there a lower
limit for how insignificant things can be included?
Do we include individual milestones? (I'm referring
to actual milestones, by the roadside.) Or is
there some "notability" requirement?

Do we need a standard way to indicate types
of monuments? Some sort of ontology or
controlled vocabulary? Do heritage instutitions
already have a classification that we can reuse?
Are existing categories on Commons sufficient?

Should each monument have its own category
on Commons? If it is a monument, I guess we
can expect to get more than one photo of it.
Is there a standard way to add geo coordinates
and object type to categories on Commons?

  Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

  Wikimedia Sverige - stöd fri kunskap - http://wikimedia.se/