[Tagging] RFC: tomb key

[Bert -Araali- Van Opstal]

Here is the African again with his exceptions.

We have many places here which we call tombs, they carry the word 
"tombs" in their English names from the colonial times.

Most of these tombs, are just traditionally tafted huts, which contain 
some artificats which remember us of the warrior or king they 
commemorate. Some of them are build, and rebuild over time (because they 
are just non-durable tafted huts), not necessarily on top of a grave or 
containing any human remains. Sometimes they are not even rebuild in the 
exact same place. Many of them are build at the place were the warrior 
or king was killed, the remains often taken away to unknown places by 
the enemies. Yet, all of them were called tombs by the British Colonial 
rulers.
Some of them have become places of worship, some of them have become 
tourist attractions. Some of them are carefully guarded as places to 
remember the dead for clan members only.
So there is no common practice to tag these, what is your general 
opinion and best tagging practice for these examples ?

Apart from the tombs, we don't have that many cemeteries here.  Most 
people are burred on their private land in private graves.  These might 
be burred graves but also tomb like structures if they are burred to 
local clan traditions.  Some are burned and the ashes of the whole clan 
are kept in a common tomb.  All lots of differences, due to cultural 
differences, but mostly on private lands.  How should we call these and 
tag these ?  We do have some cemeteries, where people are buried on land 
owned by a religious community, but that is for people who have not 
private land when they died. We don't have government owned burial 
places, at least not that I know off.
So how do you propose we should call these, tombs ?

Greetings,

Bert Araali

On 26/02/2021 22:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Fr., 26. Feb. 2021 um 20:16 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen 
> <pla16021 at gmail.com <mailto:pla16021 at gmail.com>>:
>
>     I'd always map these as archaeological sites because they are.
>
>
>
> I mostly agree, maybe not when there is a bigger site with several of 
> them within. You could add tomb=dolmen to dolmen tagged as 
> archaeological sites as well, but it might not make a lot of sense 
> (well, you'd save 1 tag if you do not double tag, because of the 
> megalith intermediate step, but who would not double tag if several 
> tags are available ;-) ). The question how you structure the sites, 
> especially if you are not an expert in the field, is probably 
> according to the names that the experts have given, so when there is a 
> named site with 3 "unnamed" dolmen inside, I could imagine you use the 
> archaeological site tagging for the site and the tomb tags for the 
> dolmen within.
>
>     Most end up with heritage protection because of their archaeological
>     importance.
>
>
>
> sure, but that's a different tag anyway (heritage)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210227/e7d0e9a7/attachment.htm>