[Tagging] historic tagging - graves, tombs

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Feb 1 13:22:00 GMT 2011

2011/2/1 Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:48 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> My (admittedly shallow) understanding was that there was some debate
> about whether all tumuluses and dolmens were in fact tombs. This is an
> instance where I think a flatter structure might be safer:

I am not an expert either, but according to my knowledge tumuli and
dolmen are necessarily kind of tombs (if you can cite some text that
states the opposite I would indeed be interested). Maybe the
exceptions that didn't serve as burial place aren't to be considered

> historic=tumulus
> historic=dolmen
> historic=stone_circle
> historic=cromlich
> historic=standing_stones

the thing is that I expect the number of different burial structures
used in OSM to raise with the time, and having a general tag for these
kind of things and then subtag might ease the work with the data. On
the other hand I agree: if there are structures that are considered to
be dolmen or tumuli but are not intended for burial purposes this
systematics would not work.

> Having "pyramid" a subtag under "tomb" just feels wrong, also.

This because not all pyramids are used as burial places, or because
even the ones that were won't be called tomb? In the first case, you
simply wouldn't tag all pyramids as tombs, but the ones where a burial
took place (or was intended when they were built).

> Definitely tomb rather than grave, in any case.

thank you.


More information about the Tagging mailing list