[Tagging] Voting tombs proposal

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 25 14:01:07 UTC 2021


On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 at 13:36, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

Please be aware that “historic” is not about (elevated) historic
> significance, it is about things “that are of historic interest”. Any tomb
> is of historic interest.
>

To a degree, maybe.  Some are of far less interest than others.  Like just
about
every grave in a churchyard, all of which are technically tombs.  Most of
the
graves in Highgate Cemetery are of no interest to anyone except descendents
of the interred, but the tomb of Karl Marx gets a lot of visitors.

>
> My suggestion is to discourage the man_made tag and do it the other way
> round: add qualifying tags to those particular and outstanding tombs with
> the reasons for their significance.
>

Or we could have historic=tomb + historic_significance=no instead of
man_made=tomb.  That would work.  Sort of.  It makes as much sense
as rejecting man_made=tomb + optional historic=yes as a solution.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210325/189f812f/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list