[OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?

[Roy Wallace]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Ciarán Mooney
<general.mooney at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> I base this distinction on when you point at a cemetery and ask "What
> is that?" a local will respond "It's a cemetery.", ask the same
> question in a church graveyard and you get "It's a grave yard."

Fair enough.

> I am happy to continue with the status quo, however I can see things
> becoming increasingly difficult as the map becomes more complete. At
> the moment these things are not worth worrying about as the blank bits
> of the map require more attention (ie get it in the database first,
> then worry about tagging it).

I agree that the grave_yard/cemetery thing is, in itself, not a big
deal. I am actually only commenting on it because I think it helps
bring to the surface the reasoning/guidelines/principles that can help
guide our (anarchic) tagging practices as the map becomes more
complete, as you say, into the future.

I disagree with the statement "get it in the database first, then
worry about tagging it" - this is fine *as long as* whatever has been
put in the database is meaningful and clear. Otherwise we end up with,
for example, footways/cycleways that we have no idea whether we're
allowed to walk on/cycle on :)

> Again, I am happy to discuss the idea of a Working Group for Tagging
> Proposals. Although it should probably go in another thread. I can't
> find the old one.

Yeah, I support any ideas for how to facilitate pushing forward the
outcomes of discussions into implementation. An alternative to the
Working Group is just to adopt voting more widely as a decision making
tool. But as I said, yeah, let's try a few things out.