[Tagging] historic tagging - graves, tombs

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Feb 1 14:15:47 GMT 2011

2011/2/1 Chris Hill <osm at raggedred.net>:
> On 01/02/11 12:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> 2011/2/1 Chris Hill<osm at raggedred.net>:
> 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.

yes, wikipedia lists a whole lot of possible sub-classifications
according to the form of the tumulus:

>> For single graves we could have
>> historic=grave which would mark the actual place where a person is
>> buried.
> Yes, but in some cases multiple people are buried together, such as a family
> plot, and mass graves deserve a specific tag too.

we could have something like step_count for steps, i.e. tagging a
value (e.g. grave_count) for the amount of people buried including
"mass" and "several" for rough estimates.

>> 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.

would you have a need to tag places as both, memorial and grave the
same time? This would maybe speak against historic=grave.

> 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.

I won't give it a dedicated place-tag actually, the ones in Cairo are
probably better described with place=suburb (according OSM-meaning as
"named part of the city" not as "suburban area") for the inhabited
place, and a different tag (from the historic-range) for the
historical structure. The necropolis I am mapping are not inhabited
and have never been to my knowledge --- hm, maybe place=necropolis is
not bad ;-), places do cover more then inhabited places in OSM (think
of islands, localities, etc.). Currently I was more thinking about
something like historic=archaeological_site, site_type=necropolis.

The page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Darchaeological_site
lists also
for places with several tumuli, but this doesn't completely cover the
necropolis I a mapping, as there are not only tumuli. necropolis would
be more generic and could be refined with mapping the distinct
features present inside the area.


More information about the Tagging mailing list