[Tagging] Cemetery / Inclusion of parking

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Sat Mar 27 19:20:50 UTC 2021


On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 at 18:42, Florian Lohoff <f at zz.de> wrote:

>
> I don't think physical boundaries like hedges or fences are the correct
> wording. I have 2 cemeteries in mind which definitely don't have any
> fences,


I've mapped a lot of graveyards and cemeteries and all of them
had physical boundaries.  That doesn't mean there cannot be any
without physical boundaries but they seem to be uncommon in
my part of the world.

but the parking lot are definitely only for the cemetery (In lack
> of other buildings in vicinity).
>

I have mapped a few cemeteries like that.  But...

"The outline should include all features which are build for or
> predominantly used by the cemetery like parking lots, chapels, tombs."
>

I don't like that.  Because the ones I'm thinking of have parking but it's
a widening in a public road.  There is a fence between it and the
cemetery, and a gate in the fence.  Although there is nothing else
to visit in the vicinity, there is nothing preventing somebody parking
there to eat a sandwich or something.  No sign saying "Parking
only for access to cemetery."
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.06806&mlon=-4.74350#map=19/52.06806/-4.74350

If there were no fence there, I still wouldn't consider the parking to be
part
of the cemetery.  The parking is maintained by the council highways
department, I believe the cemetery is an overflow from the nearby
church, but I've been unable to confirm that.

Your case may be different.  In which case we need wording that allows
both, and (ideally) explains when each case applies.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210327/d3b9d022/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list