[Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb
brad.neuhauser at gmail.com
Thu Oct 16 15:09:29 UTC 2014
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com
> 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 just noticed it when a user in my area tagged a couple graves this way.
I agree that all the grave: seems unnecessary. In particular, name, ref,
inscription, and memorial could probably all be used as-is. I put a note on
the Discussion page. Do people tag birth/death dates along with
> 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
> I don't know, but my guess would be it was in counterpoint to the note
that was on historic=tomb restricting its use mainly to notable people's
burial sites. Do you think historic=tomb, tomb=tombstone should be used for
"ordinary" graves or would a different tag be better?
> 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