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

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 at 14:29, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

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).
>

Roughly...

A grave is a hole dug in the ground and back-filled.  There is nothing
preventing the filling material contacting the coffin (or body, if there is
no coffin),  The top may be slightly raised to account for later settling
and
compaction.

A tomb is some sort of chamber, usually underground, containing a body
(or coffin wth a body in), usually constructed of stone.  The body/coffin is
air-gapped from the walls of the tomb.

A sepulchre is a chamber cut into rock.

A tumulus is a hill over (or possibly containing) a grave or tomb.  It
is intended to be visible from a large distance.  Sometimes called
a burial mound.

Cairns may be used as burial monuments, not just as waymarkers.
Chambered cairns are rock tombs with a cairn on top.

Some chambered cairns may also be passage tombs if covered with
rocks or a burial mound if covered with earth.

As with everything we map, there are exceptions and blurred
boundaries.


> 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.
>

Not all cenotaphs resemble tombs, so that type should definitely be
excluded.  The definition of cenotaphs that resemble tombs is that
they do not contain remains; they are empty tombs.  We already have
historic=memorial + memorial=war_memorial for cenotaphs
commemorating war dead.  So if you have a tomb-like
memorial to people who died but not in a war then you might have
a use for this, though I would be inclined to come up with a
memorial=* for it rather than map it as historic=tomb.

As for Relation:person, it's probably better to add the inscription
(which often identifies the occupant, anyway).

I just googled for your proposal to check if you had mentioned
inscription=*.  Instead of your proposal I found
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dtomb

Looks like the horse has already bolted.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210226/f458d063/attachment.htm>