[Tagging] Draft proposal for historic cemetery

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 12. Feb. 2021 um 07:49 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org>:

> Thanks! That is highly useful and in cases of documenting de facto usage
> is as useful as proposal
> (and maybe even more as there is lower risk of ending with redefining tag
> and tag documentation
> in Wiki mismatching reality).
>
> If someone else wants to this then following are tags with growing usage
> without their wiki page
>
> natural=ground
>


this is in a group with natural=mud, orthogonal to most of the natural tags
which define features (a "ground" isn't a feature, is it?) Possible
alternative: surface=bare_ground




> natural=tree_group
>


possible alternative: a relation with type=group that combines individual
trees



> landuse=static_caravan
>


subtype of landuse=residential



> landuse=house
>


no idea, maybe subtype of landuse=residential?



> landuse=livestock
>


subtype of landuse=farmyard?



> landuse=clearing
>


not a landuse in my understanding



> place=subdistrict
>


sounds like an administrative entity, boundary=administrative, admin_level=*



> surface=trail
>


no idea, I guess I would suggest to not use this tag



> wall=pise
>


possibly valid as a subtype of a wall, referring to the kind of
construction and material?



> railway=facility
>


no idea, seems too generic to get an idea what it is about. What about
specifying the kind of facility and verifying that the grounds are marked
with landuse=railway?



entrance=shop
>


should be discouraged. "entrance" is about the kind of entrance, "shop"
seems to refer to where the entrance leads

Thank you for researching the field of undocumented tags.

Cheers
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210212/63ce05f4/attachment.htm>