[Tagging] Cemetery / Inclusion of parking
Bert -Araali- Van Opstal
bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com
Fri Mar 26 10:52:26 UTC 2021
In my opinion landuse=cemetery should only be used for the actual land
where human remains are burried, preserved above ground or human remains
as ashes are kept in urns or spread. Cemeteries are not attached to a
place of worship, for those we have grave-yard. It is in my opinion a
vary valid landuse tag, not an amenity, as in many countries, cemeteries
are individual or multiple graves on private land. Often and most
culturally not accepted to construct a road, a parking or other landuse
without relocation or acceptance by the descendants and/or local community.
The definition says it should not include parking areas, but does
include inner green spaces.
The diversity however of what kind of other land uses can be found on
cemeteries is very diverse world wide. It might even contain larger
buildings (not churches etc...) like cafeterias, playgrounds, caretaker
premises, roads, ... .
So I would propose to use the cemetery tag only for those places
actually used or destined to be used (like the inner green spaces, which
might be further detailed with natural=* or landcover=* polygons and
tags), other facilities and infrastructure to be mapped and tagged with
their most appropriate landuse=*, amenity=* and highway=*.
To designate the whole place as being part of a "cemetery" as a
distinguishable and single land managed as a cemetery, one should use a
boundary relation, with boundary=protected_area protected_class=21
You might consider even to specify a specific boundary value for
protect_class=21 as is proposed for forestry areas.
On 26/03/2021 13:02, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> Mar 25, 2021, 22:22 by f at zz.de:
> i got into a discussion whether cemetery parking belongs within the
> landuse=cemetery (Which i think it does) and the mapper changing
> that pointed me to tag:landuse=cemetery which does indeed state
> that "nearby parking" should not be within that landuse.
> It may be a cultural issue (I heard that in USA in some cases you
> drive car into cemetery itself), and I guess that "nearby parking"
> is important part. What about "internal parking"?
> Important part, to anguish of key purists: landuse=cemetery is not
> strictly a
> land use. It is for a cemetery area and would exclude for example
> nearby masonry workshops making graves
> or nearby parkings for sole purpose of cemetery visitors, nearby
> retail area selling
> cemetery materials (flowers, grave candles etc)...
> And includes area reserved for burial, not yet used for burial (or
> maybe it counts as
> land use already?)
> For example see cases where cemetery has nearby parking that
> is clearly outside cemetery area and I would consider it mapped correctly:
> Even if its only/primary purpose is to be used by people visiting it.
> Including it in a cemetery area would be ridiculous.
> But see
> where cemetery area is less well defined, and parking is more within
> it and
> was mapped as part of it. I would map it differently, but this mapping
> is also correct.
> that apparently has parking area within fenced cemetery area. Seems fine.
> (I can provide photos for that location if aerial imagery + Google
> Street View + etc is
> This is not mentioned in the German version and i doubt there
> is consensus about this.
> IMHO this does not make sense when in a landuse=retail the parking
> are _within_ the landuse, and in case of landuse=cemetery they are
> So i dispute the last sentence of this change in the wiki article for
> Florian Lohoff f at zz.de
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging