2014-10-16 18:05 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser :
> As a native English speaker, I agree, "tomb" seems very different than an
> ordinary grave with a tombstone. From looking at wikipedia, the difference
> mainly seems to be that a tomb has a structure containing the remains,
> whereas with a grave, the
> I do not understand the "mainly for graves without historic value" part.
>>> Does this exclude graves with historic value, or is it simply a hint that
>>> there are far more graves for ordinary people than there are for famous
>>> ones?
>>>
>>
>
> I don't know, but my guess would be it was in cou
2014-10-16 17:09 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser :
> I just noticed it when a user in my area tagged a couple graves this way.
> I agree that all the grave: seems unnecessary. In particular, name, ref,
> inscription, and memorial could probably all be used as-is. I put a note on
> the Discussion page. Do
responses inline
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 2014-10-16 16:14 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser :
>
>> In addition to tomb=* and cemetery=grave, there's also this proposal:
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Grave
>>
>> The proposal states it is
2014-10-16 16:14 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser :
> In addition to tomb=* and cemetery=grave, there's also this proposal:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Grave
>
> The proposal states it is "mainly for [graves] without historic value"
>
Thank you for pointing to this. It seems
2014-10-16 16:05 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
> I think that it is a good idea, though it will make German translation out
> of synch.
>
I think the German version (like any other localized version) should be a
translation of the general version (English). The reason why it is now out
of sync i
In addition to tomb=* and cemetery=grave, there's also this proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Grave
The proposal states it is "mainly for [graves] without historic value"
And, it doesn't recommend using relation=person ;)
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 2:00 AM, sabas88 wro
I think that it is a good idea, though it will make German translation out
of synch.
2014-10-16 14:28 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
> 2014-10-16 13:00 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>
>> "and? You can add subtags to describe why a certain tomb is notable" - so
>> what is the point of
>> defini
2014-10-16 13:00 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
> "and? You can add subtags to describe why a certain tomb is notable" - so
> what is the point of
> defining it as "where are buried important or well-known persons of their
> era"?
oh, thank you for pulling the attention to this. The cited senten
"and? You can add subtags to describe why a certain tomb is notable" - so
what is the point of
defining it as "where are buried important or well-known persons of their
era"?
2014-10-16 10:16 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
> 2014-10-16 8:33 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>
>> It seems that are
2014-10-16 8:33 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
> It seems that are serious problems with this tag, is there somebody
> interested in
> this topic who want to make a better proposal?
>
I am interested in this tag
>
> (1) This tag can not be used on the same object as
> historic=archaeological_s
2014-10-16 8:33 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
> It seems that are serious problems with this tag, is there somebody
> interested in
> this topic who want to make a better proposal?
>
> (1) This tag can not be used on the same object as
> historic=archaeological_site -
> despite the fact that many
It seems that are serious problems with this tag, is there somebody
interested in
this topic who want to make a better proposal?
(1) This tag can not be used on the same object as
historic=archaeological_site -
despite the fact that many archaeological sites are excavated tombs.
(2) There is no c
13 matches
Mail list logo
