[Tagging] historic tagging - graves, tombs

Chris Hill osm at raggedred.net
Tue Feb 1 12:33:19 GMT 2011

On 01/02/11 11:48, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> How do you tag single (historic) burial places? I am currently looking
> for a tagging scheme to structure these kind of places, but am unsure
> about the wording.
> My suggestions would be
> * historic=grave
> or
> * historic=tomb
> for the main tag. Subtags would then be
> grave=pyramid
> grave=mausoleum
> grave=tumulus
> grave=dolmen
> grave=war_grave
> grave=crypt
> and others that you maybe name
> and maybe also
> grave=cenotaph
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mausoleum
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolmen
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_grave
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypt
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenotaph
> This could be combined with historic:civilization for better description.
> What do you say about the wording? Would tomb or grave be suited better?
A grave tends to be a hole dug in the ground to bury one or more bodies, 
a tomb is more of a structure, so they are not mutually exclusive.

I would group pyramid, mausoleum, tumulus, dolmen and crypt as a tomb

grave=cenotaph doesn't feel right to me, usually there is not an actual 
burial there, it is more of a monument. 
historic=monument,monument=cenotaph seems better to me.

I am interested because I am working on a project for the Imperial War 
Museum improving the data held for memorials including war memorials, 
cenotaphs, grave memorials, street shrines, rolls of honour, church 
memorials such as windows etc. We are working on the memorials for 
1914-19 war at present. Most of these are historic=memorial to me, but 
historic=grave is interesting.

Cheers, Chris
user: chillly

More information about the Tagging mailing list