[Tagging] Cemetery / Inclusion of parking

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 27, 2021, 19:39 by f at zz.de:

> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 03:43:02PM +0000, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 at 15:26, Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > What wording would you propose?
>> >
>>
>> The outline of the area should include buildings and parking lots
>> that are within the boundaries (fences/hedges/walls) but exclude
>> parking lots that are outside of those boundaries.
>>
>> For bonus points, is it permissible or desirable to use multipolygons
>> to make parking areas within the boundaries not part of the landuse?
>> Discuss.
>>
>
> 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, but the parking lot are definitely only for the cemetery (In lack
> of other buildings in vicinity).
>
Is parking considered to be part of cemetery grounds by local people?
Parking next to cemetery, solely for cemetery, owned by cemetery,
operate by cemetery may be nevertheless outside cemetery.


> I would propose something like this:
>
> "The outline should include all features which are build for or
> predominantly used by the cemetery like parking lots, chapels, tombs."
>
That is wrong and incorrect and wrong advise for many places,
as mentioned already in this thread.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.10191&mlon=19.98346#map=19/50.10191/19.98346
is not part of cemetery

this masonry making graves workshops are not part of cemetery
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.07506&mlon=19.95721#map=19/50.07506/19.95721

not-yet-mapped parking here is not part of cemetery
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.09484&mlon=19.87459#map=19/50.09484/19.87459

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210328/4993fdeb/attachment.htm>