[Tagging] Cenotaph WAS Re: Tagging memorial sites

[Warin]

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.
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/RMS_Titanic_Musician's_Memorial,_Southampton.jpg 
> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/RMS_Titanic_Musician%27s_Memorial,_Southampton.jpg>
>
> The Archibald Butt cenotaph in Arlington is an empty grave, rather 
> than an empty tomb:
>
> http://www.glts.org/memorials/dc/images/107_0710.jpg 
> <http://www.glts.org/memorials/dc/images/107_0710.jpg>
>
> 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.
>
> https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/national_cemeteries/photos/list_of-sites2/054_Cenotaphs.jpg 
> <https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/national_cemeteries/photos/list_of-sites2/054_Cenotaphs.jpg>
> http://www.congressionalcemetery.org/pdf/Walking-Tours/Cenotaphs.pdf 
> <http://www.congressionalcemetery.org/pdf/Walking-Tours/Cenotaphs.pdf>
>
> 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 
> elsewhere.
>
> 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 ...
>         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenotaph
>         <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenotaph>
>
>         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 
cenotaph.

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 
discussion?
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...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160923/0e96f166/attachment.html>