[Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Thu Oct 16 14:27:55 UTC 2014
2014-10-16 16:14 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser <brad.neuhauser at gmail.com>:
> In addition to tomb=* and cemetery=grave, there's also this proposal:
> The proposal states it is "mainly for [graves] without historic value"
Thank you for pointing to this. It seems strange to add the "grave:" prefix
to all keys, e.g. "ref", "inscription" etc. because typically you can get
this context by the object to which a tag is applied to. If this context is
not clear from the mapping than this is usually a sign that there is some
problem in the mapping (several entities mixed up into one osm object).
I do not understand the "mainly for graves without historic value" part.
Does this exclude graves with historic value, or is it simply a hint that
there are far more graves for ordinary people than there are for famous
PS: Usage of the cemetery=grave tag should be discouraged: single graves
aren't subtypes of cemeteries (and we shouldn't encourage different tagging
schemes for graves on cemeteries and graves on churchyards, at least IMHO).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging