[Tagging] historic tagging - graves, tombs
osm at raggedred.net
Tue Feb 1 13:55:07 GMT 2011
On 01/02/11 12:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2011/2/1 Chris Hill<osm at raggedred.net>:
>>> 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
> I see. I think that's the one I am after. I have addional complexity
> as in some tumuli there is several graves (not sure if they are
> graves, they are not dug into the earth but constructed chambers),
> with separate entrances, and known under different names (one for the
> tumulus and one for each burial place).
Many tumuli do have multiple graves in them. Sometimes these are small
stone-lined burials known as cists (kists) sometimes simply a pot
containing cremated remains and other types too. Tumuli were in use over
such a long period of time that traditions changed over the period, but
a tumulus was usually built for a single burial then often extended or
reused for later burials, sometimes more than a thousand years later.
Very rarely do the remains still survive, so usually the most you can
say about a tumulus is that it exists in a specific place, not who or
how many people were buried there or when. The style and shape gives
information about the a final date it was last modified, but only to
perhaps a 500 year and not much about when it was first used.
>> 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.
> yes, it's not a place where actually a dead body was put, it is like
> an "empty grave", though with similar appearance to a real grave. I
> don't need this at the moment, so I suggest to keep it out from
> grave/tomb (or better document your suggestion in monument).
>> 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.
> OK, according to your comment I should better suggest historic=tomb to
> tag bigger structures, right?
I think so, but I'm interested in other views too.
> For single graves we could have
> historic=grave which would mark the actual place where a person is
Yes, but in some cases multiple people are buried together, such as a
family plot, and mass graves deserve a specific tag too. I would add
some inscription info (probably not the full inscription we have a 255
char limit I think). I add would add UKNIWM_ref=* for the UK National
Inventory of War Memorials ref, so all other details could be looked up
from there, though a more general ref might be better.
> For bigger structures (collections=field of tombs/graves,
> distinct part of a cemetary) there could be another tag (maybe what
> you are after if tagging memorials like 1914-19).
Many of the memorials I'm interested in are not at the actual site of a
burial, which is why I think historic=memorial is best in those cases,
but some are tombs or graves, hence my interest in your suggestions.
> I also need this for
> the whole structure (in my case it's several Etruscan necropoli). Not
> sure if tagging these places like a cemetary would be appropriate. I
> remember from Cairo Egypt that people were actually living inside the
> ancient necropolis, so tagging them like an actual cemetary would be
Necropolis is an interesting special case, if people are living there
maybe place=necropolis is best. I don't know enough to offer a firm
suggestion. Some ancient cemeteries are now under modern settlements,
but that's not the same thing.
More information about the Tagging