[Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Thu Oct 16 15:34:07 UTC 2014
2014-10-16 17:09 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser <brad.neuhauser at gmail.com>:
> 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 have never done so (IIRR), but occassionally it could make sense (e.g. if
there was a famous battle or catastrophy and you wanted to point out that
the buried people died on that day or s.th. like that). And also for famous
people when it is known. Personally I have used historic=tomb for antique
tombs where those details aren't known (at least to me ;-) ).
>> 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?
I'm not a native English speaker, but to me it seems strange. What do you
think? I thought that an ordinary grave (a wooden coffin in a hole dug into
the earth) won't qualify as "tomb" and that there was some structure
required for a "tomb". I don't like tomb=tombstone because I'd see the
tombstone (that's the same as a headstone, isn't it?) as part of a tomb or
grave, but not as a subtype for the tomb as a whole in a way that the other
values like pyramid, rock-cut tomb or tumulus are.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging