How do you tag single (historic) burial places? I am currently looking
for a tagging scheme to structure these kind of places, but am unsure
about the wording.
My suggestions would be
* historic=grave
or
* historic=tomb
for the main tag. Subtags would then be
grave=pyramid
grave=mausoleum
To tag obelisks I suggest
man_made=obelisk
an alternative could be
historic=obelisk
but some obelisks are actually not old, so historic might not yet be
an appropriate tag for them. In combination with historic:civilization
and historic:period they could still be clearly distinguished.
On 01/02/11 11:48, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
How do you tag single (historic) burial places? I am currently looking
for a tagging scheme to structure these kind of places, but am unsure
about the wording.
My suggestions would be
* historic=grave
or
* historic=tomb
for the main tag. Subtags
2011/2/1 Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net:
What do you say about the wording? Would tomb or grave be suited better?
A grave tends to be a hole dug in the ground to bury one or more bodies, a
tomb is more of a structure, so they are not mutually exclusive.
I would group pyramid, mausoleum,
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:48 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
grave=pyramid
grave=mausoleum
grave=tumulus
grave=dolmen
My (admittedly shallow) understanding was that there was some debate
about whether all tumuluses and dolmens were in fact tombs. This is an
instance
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
To tag obelisks I suggest
man_made=obelisk
an alternative could be
historic=obelisk
Definitely historic=obelisk, I think. It doesn't really matter if it's
*old*, it's still *historical*.
(But also consider
On 01/02/2011 12:11, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
To tag obelisks I suggest
man_made=obelisk
an alternative could be
historic=obelisk
but some obelisks are actually not old, so historic might not yet be
an appropriate tag for them. In combination with historic:civilization
and historic:period
2011/2/1 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:48 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
My (admittedly shallow) understanding was that there was some debate
about whether all tumuluses and dolmens were in fact tombs. This is an
instance where I think a flatter structure might be
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote:
As that Wikipedia article says, its just a particular style/shape of
monument or memorial.
So I think it would be best tagged as historic=monument or
historic=memorial, plus a subtag for obelisk.
Maybe something like
2011/2/1 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote:
Oh...and I just discovered obelisk is already mentioned here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landmark
Taginfo has a grand total of 5 landmark=obelisk
Yes, I saw
2011/2/1 Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm:
As that Wikipedia article says, its just a particular style/shape of
monument or memorial.
So I think it would be best tagged as historic=monument or
historic=memorial, plus a subtag for obelisk.
Maybe something like monument:style=obelisk ?
This
On 01/02/11 12:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2011/2/1 Chris Hillo...@raggedred.net:
What do you say about the wording? Would tomb or grave be suited better?
A grave tends to be a hole dug in the ground to bury one or more bodies, a
tomb is more of a structure, so they are not mutually
2011/2/1 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
To tag obelisks I suggest
man_made=obelisk
an alternative could be
historic=obelisk
Definitely historic=obelisk, I think. It doesn't really matter if it's
*old*,
On 01/02/2011 13:35, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2011/2/1 Craig Wallacecraig...@fastmail.fm:
As that Wikipedia article says, its just a particular style/shape of
monument or memorial.
So I think it would be best tagged as historic=monument or
historic=memorial, plus a subtag for obelisk.
Maybe
2011/2/1 Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net:
On 01/02/11 12:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2011/2/1 Chris Hillo...@raggedred.net:
Many tumuli do have multiple graves in them. Sometimes these are small
stone-lined burials known as cists (kists) sometimes simply a pot containing
cremated remains
2011/2/1 Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm:
their primary purpose. That purpose is to provide a place of worship. I
think a tower can be a monument (and tagged as such), if that is why it was
built
I think both monument and memorial are (usually) for structures in memory of
something.
2011/2/1 Lennard l...@xs4all.nl:
Fortunately, for capital, we only use yes and not the other 2 variants in
the main mapnik map. It's not logical to add these at this point. We already
have to normalise true and 1 to yes for bridges and tunnels, and if those
variants would disappear from the
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:58:44 +0100
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Definitely historic=obelisk, I think. It doesn't really matter if
it's *old*, it's still *historical*.
not all of them. A Las Vegas Obelisk is hardly to be called
historical.
historical=fake
:D
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:39:22 +0100
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
think about the Eiffel tower in Paris. It is (IMHO) clearly a
monument, but it was originally built as a temporal structure for the
world fair. I won't be a monument according to the definition given
above.
I
I would prefer we normalize in the actual database instead of coming up with a
ton of transformations needed to convert the data to something meaningful. Bots
tend to have unintended consequences though, so if you want to do it yourself I
would just use XAPI to pull the data in to JOSM and
20 matches
Mail list logo
