[Tagging] Cenotaph WAS Re: Tagging memorial sites
61sundowner at gmail.com
Fri Sep 23 02:58:09 UTC 2016
On 23-Sep-16 07:09 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> Oops - sent originally from wrong mailbox:
> The Titanic musicians' cenotaph in Southhampton is a plaque set in a
> wall, but even it is made to look like a tomb set in the same wall.
> The Archibald Butt cenotaph in Arlington is an empty grave, rather
> than an empty tomb:
> The Congressional Cemetery in Washington has monuments to 171 members
> of the U.S. Congress who died in office. They're all called
> 'cenotaphs' in an abuse of terminology, since somewhere between fifty
> and eighty of them mark actual burial places. (The remainder truly are
> cenotaphs to individuals whose remains are interred elsewhere.) The
> Congressional ones from 1816 to 1876 are built to a standard design by
> Benjamin Latrobe.
> Generally, I would propose tagging anything as a 'cenotaph' only if it
> was built intending that it should be venerated as a surrogate for the
> final resting place of some person or persons whose remains lie
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 2016-09-21 23:57 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com
> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>>:
> Some resemble a tomb, some don't .... some are statues, some
> are plaques, some are columns.
> Wikipedia has quite a few photos of some ...
> I suppose it depend on what you think a tomb looks like?
> yes, I suppose so as well. To me, all of these Cenotaphs that WP
> has an image for are looking like tombs. A "plaque" or "statue"
> are no cenotaphs, do you have an example for one of these?
Given the variety of things that are tombs .. it is hard to get an
architecture that is significantly different for a cenotaph. Both are
for remembrance of the deceased so has similar functions so there form
is similar too.
The difference is the location of the deceased remains. If co-located
then it is a tomb/grave. If the locations are different then it is a
The OSM tagging problem maybe using the tag 'historic=' for a cenotaph
where it may not be regarded as 'historic'? Is this the source of this
All the cenotaphs I know of are 'historic' but I can see that there
maybe others that are viewed as not 'historic'.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging