[Tagging] Cemetery / Inclusion of parking

Bert -Araali- Van Opstal bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com
Sat Mar 27 15:05:02 UTC 2021


On 27/03/2021 13:35, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 01:52:26PM +0300, Bert -Araali- Van Opstal wrote:
>> 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=*.
> But why do you treat landuse=cemetery different than landuse=retail?
> Landuses (We had this discussion on this very list in the thread about
> micromapping with landuse e.g. landuse=hedge) are large swaths of land
> classification. So all objects belonging to this cemetery should
> be within this landuse.
Well, actually we don't. The discussion always arrises when certain 
areas become more detailed, mappers are starting to do micromapping.
Landuse, all of the landuse areas, can be regarded as large chunks of 
land, however, they should not reflect what only exists on paper, a 
zoning plan. An urban or rural zoning plan might be enforced, but in 
many areas, even in Western countries, it is not that strictly 
enforced.  So organically, in many places you will always have a mix of 
landuses on the ground.  Landuse can be used, and in my opinion should 
be used on a more detailed level, plot by plot being the ultimate end 
point.  In this way you actually map the ground truth, OSM becomes a 
very powerful database for planners to see how zoning is applied in the 
real world.  How the actual landuse, the ground truth in many cases 
differs from the plans, what you think you see on large scale imagery.

If we are more open to adopt this philosophy, whitout excluding large 
chunks of land, but rather detail the map more and change the large 
landuse poygons into boundaries, with relations etc... OSM will become 
much more powerful.  Boundaries become more clear to all users as not 
being necessary to be verifiable on the ground, they can be verified by 
other "reliable" sources, like zoning plans.  Like management and land 
ownership.
If you want to map a cemetery, with or without it's parking spaces, you 
will always end up in this kind of discussions.  Same as we did in 
landuse=forest and many others.
If we accept and start mapping or detailing taking into account that we 
have boundaries - to map owenrship and management areas -, surrounding 
different landuses, amenities, leisure etc..., which identify the actual 
use of the land - on a detailed level - natural/landcover to describe 
what is on top of the land, buildings are a form of landcover - they can 
appear on any landuse etc... we wouldn't have these discussions.

The parking problem you try to solve with a landuse tag is not a issue 
of how the land is used, it is used as a parking.  It's an ownership or 
management issue, is it owned or managed by the cemetery, OK then it 
belongs within it's boundaries. Let's not get ridiculous about this, in 
my minds it's actually very simple.

>
> And what about cultures where people are buried only in tombs, sometimes
> large and multi storeys - Are these to be excluded because these are
> buildings?
Of course they are buildings, and what is wrong that they are on 
landuse=cemetery ? There is nothing wrong with that, actually it 
clarifies that that particular building was intended to preserve human 
remains, being it underground, above ground, as ashes or whatever 
cultural and religious differences we have across the world.  The 
opposite approach is what creates the discussion here, should I consider 
a large chunk of land as a cemetery because there is one or a few tombs 
or graves located on it ? No, and if it should be, OK, mark the small 
chunks of land as landuse=cemetery and surround it with a boundary.  
Same like graves or small cemeteries on private land, which is quite 
common across the world.  Should I not mark those small chunks of kands 
as cemeteries, with or without a parking space, when for my part they 
are in an industrial or residential or commercial zone ?
>
> So landuse=cemetery has large cultural diversity, this is why i think
> these "exclude parking spaces" is wrong as it only fits some few
> places in this world.
True, and you can solve that easily with what I am trying to explain.  
Which would work fine everywhere. If you want more detail in a map, 
micromapping, landuse is not a big chunk of land, get that out of your 
way of thinking.
>
> Flo
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210327/ffd17270/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list