[Tagging] RFC historic=tomb and tomb=* tags, WAS Re: RFC: tomb key

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 26. Feb. 2021 um 15:13 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org>:

> "To tag the persons buried in a tomb, see the person relation"
>
> I would not support
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:person_(rewrite)
> even indirectly.
>


thank you for noting this. I am not interested in person relations either,
and have removed the reference. Who wants to do it can so anyway.



>
> tomb=pyramid tomb=mausoleum - what should be tagged as tomb?
> (or is tagged giving high use present already)
> Just grave inside or entire pyramid/mausoleum?
> Both? Either?
>


The entire tomb should be tagged as tomb. A pyramid (or any tomb for the
matter) may also contain more than one buried person, or they may have long
been removed, etc. 10 years ago I have been mapping the etruscan necropolis
of Cerveteri and Tarquinia using this scheme and there weren't issues,
although some tumuli had several graves (burial chambers) in them. Still
the tumulus could be seen as a "tomb" (I hope, actually, as in my mother
tongue, German, there isn't a distinction between "tomb" and "grave", I
always had difficulties understanding the difference).

What do people think about cenotaphs, should they be included? I had
included them in 2011, but later thought they were not actually tombs, and
have tended to recommend excluding them, but if the definition said "a tag
for tomb and tomblike structures", we could include cenotaphs. They would
somehow fit here as well, as they are very similar. On the other hand, they
would also fit under monument or memorial, or could get their own main tag.

Cheers
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210226/4e47d0e5/attachment.htm>