[Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb

[Brad Neuhauser]

In addition to tomb=* and cemetery=grave, there's also this proposal:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Grave

The proposal states it is "mainly for [graves] without historic value"
And, it doesn't recommend using relation=person ;)

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 2:00 AM, sabas88 <sabas88 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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?
>>
>> (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.
>>
>> (2) There is no clear limit for notability, most likely this tag will be
>> in future used to
>> describe any grave. Even now, some people are using it this way. The same
>> happened with natural=tree - originally defined as "lone or significant
>> tree".
>>
>> (3) There is no proposed tag to use for ordinary grave, further
>> encuraging using this tag in way other than defined.
>>
>
> There are used these two
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tomb
> and
> http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/cemetery=grave#overview
>
> The first is a structured proposal, the second is just used....
>
>
>> see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dtomb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20141016/1bd30d18/attachment.html>