[Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb
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 clear limit for notability, most likely this tag will be in future used to describe any grave. Even now, some people are using it this way. The same happened with natural=tree - originally defined as lone or significant tree. (3) There is no proposed tag to use for ordinary grave, further encuraging using this tag in way other than defined. see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dtomb ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb
2014-10-16 8:33 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: 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 clear limit for notability, most likely this tag will be in future used to describe any grave. Even now, some people are using it this way. The same happened with natural=tree - originally defined as lone or significant tree. (3) There is no proposed tag to use for ordinary grave, further encuraging using this tag in way other than defined. There are used these two http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tomb and http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/cemetery=grave#overview The first is a structured proposal, the second is just used see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dtomb ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb
2014-10-16 8:33 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: 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_site - despite the fact that many archaeological sites are excavated tombs. in my mapping of Etruscan necropoles I have often had the case that inside one archaeological site there were several tombs. This was mainly the reason why I invented the tag. As tomb is more specific than archaeological_site I suggest to use the former in cases where both tags could apply. (2) There is no clear limit for notability, most likely this tag will be in future used to describe any grave. and? You can add subtags to describe why a certain tomb is notable, I am using historic:civilization and name for this purpose. In some cases, tourism=attraction might be nice as well, or start_date. Even now, some people are using it this way. The same happened with natural=tree - originally defined as lone or significant tree. again, this is not a problem for trees and won't be for tombs. (3) There is no proposed tag to use for ordinary grave, further encuraging using this tag in way other than defined. there are 110 occurences of historic=grave in the db. . If you'd like another tag, you can propose something else, that's how it works. IMHO it is not an issue with historic=tomb that there isn't yet an established tag for ordinary graves (maybe there will never be, depends on the mappers). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb
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 dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2014-10-16 8:33 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: 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_site - despite the fact that many archaeological sites are excavated tombs. in my mapping of Etruscan necropoles I have often had the case that inside one archaeological site there were several tombs. This was mainly the reason why I invented the tag. As tomb is more specific than archaeological_site I suggest to use the former in cases where both tags could apply. (2) There is no clear limit for notability, most likely this tag will be in future used to describe any grave. and? You can add subtags to describe why a certain tomb is notable, I am using historic:civilization and name for this purpose. In some cases, tourism=attraction might be nice as well, or start_date. Even now, some people are using it this way. The same happened with natural=tree - originally defined as lone or significant tree. again, this is not a problem for trees and won't be for tombs. (3) There is no proposed tag to use for ordinary grave, further encuraging using this tag in way other than defined. there are 110 occurences of historic=grave in the db. . If you'd like another tag, you can propose something else, that's how it works. IMHO it is not an issue with historic=tomb that there isn't yet an established tag for ordinary graves (maybe there will never be, depends on the mappers). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb
2014-10-16 13:00 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: 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 sentence was introduced in April this year here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahistoric%3Dtombdiff=1017293oldid=1014489 without any discussion, but appearently by translating from a German page. In the 3 years before there was a redirect to this proposal page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/tombs Where the definition is: This aims to be a tag for all kind of tombs: mausoleums, pyramids, simple tombs, prehistoric tombs, tumuli, rock-cut tombs. To tag the persons buried in a tomb, see the person https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:person relation and the JOSM tomb plugin https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Tomb_Plugin. My suggestion would be to substitute the cited sentence with This is a tag for all kind of tombs, e.g. mausoleums, pyramids, simple tombs, prehistoric tombs, tumuli, rock-cut tombs and others or something similar. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
2014-10-10 19:13 GMT+02:00 sabas88 saba...@gmail.com: I use amenity=drinking_water + drinkable=no I agree with your own judgement that this is nonesense ;-) IMHO we shouldn't tag like this. This is not really comparable to entrance=exit (as any exit physically might be used as an entrance as well, while drinking water is about water that is drinkable (implying more than once)). Also agree with Tobias, a water_tap would better fit into amenity. Frankly, I believe water_tap is too generic given that we already have established amenity=drinking_water for water taps that do emit drinking water. At this point if you don't want to create conflicts with existing tagging scheme, a water tap emitting water that is not drinkable (i.e. the stuff that remains for tagging when all taps with drinking water are tagged differently) could get a tag like amenity=raw_water or industrial_water. I would believe it is also highly unprobable that there will be a water tap for sewage water (there might be closures / valves of course, but this will likely not be something that we'll map, or if we did, it will be a subtag in some wastewater treatment / sewage tagging system and not in amenity=*). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb
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 dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2014-10-16 13:00 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: 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 sentence was introduced in April this year here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahistoric%3Dtombdiff=1017293oldid=1014489 without any discussion, but appearently by translating from a German page. In the 3 years before there was a redirect to this proposal page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/tombs Where the definition is: This aims to be a tag for all kind of tombs: mausoleums, pyramids, simple tombs, prehistoric tombs, tumuli, rock-cut tombs. To tag the persons buried in a tomb, see the person https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:person relation and the JOSM tomb plugin https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Tomb_Plugin. My suggestion would be to substitute the cited sentence with This is a tag for all kind of tombs, e.g. mausoleums, pyramids, simple tombs, prehistoric tombs, tumuli, rock-cut tombs and others or something similar. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb
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 saba...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-16 8:33 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: 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 clear limit for notability, most likely this tag will be in future used to describe any grave. Even now, some people are using it this way. The same happened with natural=tree - originally defined as lone or significant tree. (3) There is no proposed tag to use for ordinary grave, further encuraging using this tag in way other than defined. There are used these two http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tomb and http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/cemetery=grave#overview The first is a structured proposal, the second is just used see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dtomb ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb
2014-10-16 16:05 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: 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 is that it previously contained original (diverging and contradictory) information which was then tried to sneak into the official version (i.e. English) by referring to the German one. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb
2014-10-16 16:14 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com: 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 strange to add the grave: prefix to all keys, e.g. ref, inscription etc. because typically you can get this context by the object to which a tag is applied to. If this context is not clear from the mapping than this is usually a sign that there is some problem in the mapping (several entities mixed up into one osm object). 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? cheers, Martin PS: Usage of the cemetery=grave tag should be discouraged: single graves aren't subtypes of cemeteries (and we shouldn't encourage different tagging schemes for graves on cemeteries and graves on churchyards, at least IMHO). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation, type=person
2014-10-15 12:57 GMT+02:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: hird mistake : It is not strictly reserved for notable people and can be used to name all graves in a cemetery (which might be forbiden in some countries). Privacy is never mentionned. To solve this, you could enforce a link to wikipedia because they are already an encyclopedia and check people notability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29). And once you create a link to wikipedia (or wikidata), you don't need the relation anymore- apart from the question whether the relation is or isn't a good idea, I wanted to point out that dead people do not have any privacy rights or other personal rights (at least not in the jurisdictions I am aware of). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
2014-10-14 14:39 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: I think we should have notability, like Wikipedia. I have been using buried:wikidata=*, and if someone can't get in Wikidata, then I think the same should apply with OSM I believe requiring notability is not necessary, at least not as long as we are talking about people entering this info manually and not about imports. I would really not feel comfortable having others (here Wikidata) decide what belongs into our database and what doesn't. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb
responses inline On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-16 16:14 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com: 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 strange to add the grave: prefix to all keys, e.g. ref, inscription etc. because typically you can get this context by the object to which a tag is applied to. If this context is not clear from the mapping than this is usually a sign that there is some problem in the mapping (several entities mixed up into one osm object). 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 people tag birth/death dates along with historic=tomb? 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 counterpoint to the note that was on historic=tomb restricting its use mainly to notable people's burial sites. Do you think historic=tomb, tomb=tombstone should be used for ordinary graves or would a different tag be better? cheers, Martin PS: Usage of the cemetery=grave tag should be discouraged: single graves aren't subtypes of cemeteries (and we shouldn't encourage different tagging schemes for graves on cemeteries and graves on churchyards, at least IMHO). +1 Cheers, Brad ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb
2014-10-16 17:09 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com: 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 people tag birth/death dates along with historic=tomb? I have never done so (IIRR), but occassionally it could make sense (e.g. if there was a famous battle or catastrophy and you wanted to point out that the buried people died on that day or s.th. like that). And also for famous people when it is known. Personally I have used historic=tomb for antique tombs where those details aren't known (at least to me ;-) ). 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 counterpoint to the note that was on historic=tomb restricting its use mainly to notable people's burial sites. Do you think historic=tomb, tomb=tombstone should be used for ordinary graves or would a different tag be better? I'm not a native English speaker, but to me it seems strange. What do you think? I thought that an ordinary grave (a wooden coffin in a hole dug into the earth) won't qualify as tomb and that there was some structure required for a tomb. I don't like tomb=tombstone because I'd see the tombstone (that's the same as a headstone, isn't it?) as part of a tomb or grave, but not as a subtype for the tomb as a whole in a way that the other values like pyramid, rock-cut tomb or tumulus are. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb
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 counterpoint to the note that was on historic=tomb restricting its use mainly to notable people's burial sites. Do you think historic=tomb, tomb=tombstone should be used for ordinary graves or would a different tag be better? I'm not a native English speaker, but to me it seems strange. What do you think? I thought that an ordinary grave (a wooden coffin in a hole dug into the earth) won't qualify as tomb and that there was some structure required for a tomb. I don't like tomb=tombstone because I'd see the tombstone (that's the same as a headstone, isn't it?) as part of a tomb or grave, but not as a subtype for the tomb as a whole in a way that the other values like pyramid, rock-cut tomb or tumulus are. 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 remains are buried underground. So in that sense, tomb=tombstone seems even more odd. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb
2014-10-16 18:05 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com: 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 remains are buried underground. So in that sense, tomb=tombstone seems even more odd. Thank you for confirming, I have remove tomb=tombstone from the proposal. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
