[Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Thu Oct 16 08:16:02 UTC 2014
2014-10-16 8:33 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at gmail.com>:
> It seems that are serious problems with this tag, is there somebody
> interested in
> this topic who want to make a better proposal?
I am interested in this tag
> (1) This tag can not be used on the same object as
> historic=archaeological_site -
> despite the fact that many archaeological sites are excavated tombs.
in my mapping of Etruscan necropoles I have often had the case that inside
one archaeological site there were several tombs. This was mainly the
reason why I invented the tag. As "tomb" is more specific than
"archaeological_site" I suggest to use the former in cases where both tags
> (2) There is no clear limit for notability, most likely this tag will be
> in future used to
> describe any grave.
and? You can add subtags to describe why a certain tomb is notable, I am
using historic:civilization and name for this purpose. In some cases,
tourism=attraction might be nice as well, or start_date.
> Even now, some people are using it this way. The same
> happened with natural=tree - originally defined as "lone or significant
again, this is not a problem for trees and won't be for tombs.
> (3) There is no proposed tag to use for ordinary grave, further encuraging
> using this tag in way other than defined.
there are 110 occurences of historic=grave in the db. . If you'd like
another tag, you can propose something else, that's how it works. IMHO it
is not an issue with historic=tomb that there isn't yet an established tag
for "ordinary graves" (maybe there will never be, depends on the mappers).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging