Sri Lanka is one of the countries in the world with highest archaeological site densities in the world. For last few months, I am trying to add new archaeological and historical sites to Google Maps. The only category available at the moment on Google Maps for similar places is “Historical Landmark”, which can not be applied for archaeological/historical places. I have details about over 1500 archaeological/historical places. I am finding it difficult to upload them to the Google Maps correctly.
Every day we are losing some archaeological and historic places due to looting, natural decay, natural disasters, work of extremists, development activities, etc…
For last few years I am trying to record these sites for the future generation. After I started Local Guide program, I thought it is better to use Google Maps to record these places as Google have a more reliable platform.
I need help from the Google Maps to make this a success. Is it possible to add following categories to Google Maps?
Archaeological Site
Historical Site
Inscription
Ruins
Prehistoric Site
Ancient Settlement
This will really help me to record sites for the future. Sometimes in future, the Google Maps may be the only place we are having photos and details on some of these sites.
@AnuradhaP , when you are mapping these features please be aware that you can only add the ones that have actual names, not descriptions. From the photos and descriptions you provided is does not appear that any of those features would be allowed on the map. “Dam built over an ancient inscription” or “Ancient Inscription” cannot be the name. Unless there is an actual name for them that is not a description, these would be best mapped on a custom map using My Maps.
You may also want to consider that adding them to the map will make them easier to find, so if they are not protected in any way then they may be at more risk to damage by sending more people to visit them.
@DdDave Thank you. Yes, I understand. These are few examples to show what is happening here. I am trying to add places with the name. For then I need those categories. I will use the “Historical Landmark” category for them.
By the way, most of the archaeological sites will not have an address. It will be a point of interest for people.
Most recently I tried to add a tourist attraction/historical landmark to the map. It is a tree planted by Che Guevara. How can I add a place like that?
What Dave was trying to explain is that all your examples seem to be features that cannot be added to the map.
The base map that all see has limits as to what can be added in order to keep it from being cluttered with information. Simply being interesting is not enough for something to be mapped. There are multiple requirements for items to be mapped, one of which is that features on the map must have actual proper names. Descriptions do not count as names.
If you would like to itemize individual archaeological findings, those belong on a custom map made through tools such as www.google.com/mymaps. To be included on the main map would require that it is a recognized, named site. If such a site has multiple interesting pieces at it you can add the to your custom map but you cannot add it to the main map; only the named site can be added.
Your example of a tree is a very good example of something that is interesting, but not mappable. To share it with others you should add it to a custom map. The main map would become cluttered and slow if it was allowed that people map whatever they find interesting, thus it is not permitted.
Great idea and work @AnuradhaP ! Although what they wrote you about adding these places to map is true, i think that having in map is better than not having at all! Correct names maybe will follow.
I was wondering about that, and had a similar question on Friday.
Archaeological sites are interesting, and can help provide a sense of place, but if they are closed to public access, and the public might get the idea to go play at being some historic society on-site (for example ; I’m being a bit extreme), it is a unresolved question for me whether to add them. Until there is a policy, though, I’ll stick to what you say, @DdDave , and not add them. Thanks, all.
You may also want to consider that adding them to the map will make them easier to find, so if they are not protected in any way then they may be at more risk to damage by sending more people to visit them.
Exactly. I appreciate your enthusiasm, @AnuradhaP , but as an archaeologist myself, I work for our heritage protection services and we have serious issues with some people “looting” these sites (as you put it) with metal detectors and such. Making it easier for them to find these sites may work counter your intentions to protect them.
We have an internal database with maps and vector drawing of the sites and their extent but that’s not available for the general public. When in the field, I also use My Maps to keep track of new sites or anything relevant.
