[Tagging] Cemetery / Inclusion of parking
pelderson at gmail.com
Sat Mar 27 19:28:57 UTC 2021
Let mappers choose the best fitting option in each case.
Op za 27 mrt. 2021 om 20:25 schreef Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com>:
> 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
> 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."
> If there were no fence there, I still wouldn't consider the parking to be
> 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.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging