[Tagging] tagging for graves?

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed Oct 1 08:47:29 UTC 2014

2014-09-30 18:04 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser <brad.neuhauser at gmail.com>:

> Hi all,
> I noticed a user adding some individual grave sites of "ordinary" people
> and am wondering what the recommended tagging is, if any. Here are some
> things I could find being used (are there others?):
>    - cemetery=grave [1] taginfo: 726 uses

this seems bad tagging to me, because a grave is not a type of cemetery.

>    - grave=* [2] taginfo: 17 uses

could be OK, what are the values?

>    - historic=tomb, tomb=* [3] taginfo: 3087 uses total, of which 1778
>    are tomb=tombstone (but the wiki notes this is only for "important or
>    well-known persons")

IMHO you could use this for all kind of people, if the tagging makes sense
at all in this way. Not sure if "tomb" is a word suitable for an ordinary
grave, I have originally introduced this tag for more significant
structures like tumuli in etruscan necropoles or rock-cut tombs or
columbariums or mausoleums or pyramids. "tomb=tombstone" might also be
strange tagging because a "tombstone" is not a subtype of a tomb, or is it?
Someone has added this to the tomb page but without further notice on the
mailing lists. If tomb is a suitable term, I think the value should be
something like "ordinary_grave" or "grave" and not "tombstone" which is
really a part of a tomb/grave and not a type of tomb itself.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20141001/712fcbdc/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list