[Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb

Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhauser at gmail.com
Thu Oct 16 16:05:03 UTC 2014


> 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
>>> ones?
>>>
>>
>
> 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.


As a native English speaker, I agree, "tomb" seems very different than an
ordinary grave with a tombstone. From looking at wikipedia, the difference
mainly seems to be that a tomb has a structure containing the remains,
whereas with a grave, the remains are buried underground. So in that sense,
tomb=tombstone seems even more odd.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20141016/f9a55f1d/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list