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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Note that there is also a tag for ordinary graves, which might be labeled
with a headstone or other marker, but are dug into the ground rather than
built up into a structure:

cemetery=grave

The use of “cemetery=“ as the key is odd, but it’s been used over 10,000
times and it’s documented:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cemetery%3Dgrave

“ While a grave is a place dug into the ground for the burial of a corpse,
a tomb is a built structure.”

However, I would not be surprised if there were some overlap between these
two tags, since not all languages or cultures have a clear distinction
between the two.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 7:12 AM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210226/f85afbf5/attachment.htm>