Re: [Tagging] tagging for graves?
2014-09-30 18:04 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com: Hi all, I noticed a user adding some individual grave sites of ordinary people and am wondering what the recommended tagging is, if any. Here are some things I could find being used (are there others?): - cemetery=grave [1] taginfo: 726 uses this seems bad tagging to me, because a grave is not a type of cemetery. - grave=* [2] taginfo: 17 uses could be OK, what are the values? - historic=tomb, tomb=* [3] taginfo: 3087 uses total, of which 1778 are tomb=tombstone (but the wiki notes this is only for important or well-known persons) IMHO you could use this for all kind of people, if the tagging makes sense at all in this way. Not sure if tomb is a word suitable for an ordinary grave, I have originally introduced this tag for more significant structures like tumuli in etruscan necropoles or rock-cut tombs or columbariums or mausoleums or pyramids. tomb=tombstone might also be strange tagging because a tombstone is not a subtype of a tomb, or is it? Someone has added this to the tomb page but without further notice on the mailing lists. If tomb is a suitable term, I think the value should be something like ordinary_grave or grave and not tombstone which is really a part of a tomb/grave and not a type of tomb itself. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging for graves?
While experimenting a bit with Wikidata, I added some subject:wikidata tags to tombstones: http://overpass-turbo.eu/?Q=%3Cquery%20type%3D%22node%22%3E%0A%20%20%3Chas-kv%20k%3D%22subject%3Awikidata%22%20v%3D%22Q336977%22%2F%3E%0A%3C%2Fquery%3E%0A%3Cprint%2F%3EC=51.1936;3.23812;18 Jo 2014-10-01 10:47 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2014-09-30 18:04 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com: Hi all, I noticed a user adding some individual grave sites of ordinary people and am wondering what the recommended tagging is, if any. Here are some things I could find being used (are there others?): - cemetery=grave [1] taginfo: 726 uses this seems bad tagging to me, because a grave is not a type of cemetery. - grave=* [2] taginfo: 17 uses could be OK, what are the values? - historic=tomb, tomb=* [3] taginfo: 3087 uses total, of which 1778 are tomb=tombstone (but the wiki notes this is only for important or well-known persons) IMHO you could use this for all kind of people, if the tagging makes sense at all in this way. Not sure if tomb is a word suitable for an ordinary grave, I have originally introduced this tag for more significant structures like tumuli in etruscan necropoles or rock-cut tombs or columbariums or mausoleums or pyramids. tomb=tombstone might also be strange tagging because a tombstone is not a subtype of a tomb, or is it? Someone has added this to the tomb page but without further notice on the mailing lists. If tomb is a suitable term, I think the value should be something like ordinary_grave or grave and not tombstone which is really a part of a tomb/grave and not a type of tomb itself. 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] tagging for graves?
I used buried:wikidata for that. I used it because a grave can be an art piece as well, and maybe an artist made a statue of some other historical person or an angel on the grave. 2014-10-01 14:23 GMT+02:00 Jo winfi...@gmail.com: While experimenting a bit with Wikidata, I added some subject:wikidata tags to tombstones: http://overpass-turbo.eu/?Q=%3Cquery%20type%3D%22node%22%3E%0A%20%20%3Chas-kv%20k%3D%22subject%3Awikidata%22%20v%3D%22Q336977%22%2F%3E%0A%3C%2Fquery%3E%0A%3Cprint%2F%3EC=51.1936;3.23812;18 Jo 2014-10-01 10:47 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2014-09-30 18:04 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com: Hi all, I noticed a user adding some individual grave sites of ordinary people and am wondering what the recommended tagging is, if any. Here are some things I could find being used (are there others?): - cemetery=grave [1] taginfo: 726 uses this seems bad tagging to me, because a grave is not a type of cemetery. - grave=* [2] taginfo: 17 uses could be OK, what are the values? - historic=tomb, tomb=* [3] taginfo: 3087 uses total, of which 1778 are tomb=tombstone (but the wiki notes this is only for important or well-known persons) IMHO you could use this for all kind of people, if the tagging makes sense at all in this way. Not sure if tomb is a word suitable for an ordinary grave, I have originally introduced this tag for more significant structures like tumuli in etruscan necropoles or rock-cut tombs or columbariums or mausoleums or pyramids. tomb=tombstone might also be strange tagging because a tombstone is not a subtype of a tomb, or is it? Someone has added this to the tomb page but without further notice on the mailing lists. If tomb is a suitable term, I think the value should be something like ordinary_grave or grave and not tombstone which is really a part of a tomb/grave and not a type of tomb itself. 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging for graves?
2014-10-01 14:56 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: I used buried:wikidata for that. I used it because a grave can be an art piece as well, and maybe an artist made a statue of some other historical person or an angel on the grave. The wiki page for wikidata lists artist:wikidata and architect:wikidata for these, and defined subject:wikidata for the person something is about, but I agree that the tag could be misleading. I could also imagine subject:wikidata to describe the nature of a so-tagged object (i.e. here a tombstone), while wikidata=* would point to the specific instance. On the other hand, this will often be already linked in wikidata itself, e.g. with the instance_of relation. http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Wikidata cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging for graves?
Thanks for the reply Martin, I'd seen you weighing in on this on the wiki. On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-09-30 18:04 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com: Hi all, I noticed a user adding some individual grave sites of ordinary people and am wondering what the recommended tagging is, if any. Here are some things I could find being used (are there others?): - cemetery=grave [1] taginfo: 726 uses this seems bad tagging to me, because a grave is not a type of cemetery. I agree--should there be a stronger statement against using this on the wiki page? (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:landuse%3Dcemetery) Or maybe send ceyockey a message? - grave=* [2] taginfo: 17 uses could be OK, what are the values? For the little actual usage, it's mostly grave=yes. There are many (maybe too many?) additional tagging values on the proposal page I linked to. - historic=tomb, tomb=* [3] taginfo: 3087 uses total, of which 1778 are tomb=tombstone (but the wiki notes this is only for important or well-known persons) IMHO you could use this for all kind of people, if the tagging makes sense at all in this way. Not sure if tomb is a word suitable for an ordinary grave, I have originally introduced this tag for more significant structures like tumuli in etruscan necropoles or rock-cut tombs or columbariums or mausoleums or pyramids. tomb=tombstone might also be strange tagging because a tombstone is not a subtype of a tomb, or is it? Someone has added this to the tomb page but without further notice on the mailing lists. If tomb is a suitable term, I think the value should be something like ordinary_grave or grave and not tombstone which is really a part of a tomb/grave and not a type of tomb itself. Tomb sounds a little odd in English for a regular grave. But, clearly people are searching for something to use. I did some looking via overpass for the three tag schemes I mentioned above, and even for the first two (cemetery=grave and grave=*) most graves seem to be well-known figures, with many of them also tagged historic=*. So, it doesn't help much to get at what to do for the grave of an ordinary person. The vast majority of grave tags seem to be in Germany. Has there been any sort of discussion of this on the DE list? Thanks, Brad 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] tagging for graves?
There is a little bit more information http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Historical_Objects/Karteneigenschaften, which belongs to the geschichtskarte-map. I believe in their JOSM preset there is also a section on graves. regards m On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the reply Martin, I'd seen you weighing in on this on the wiki. On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-09-30 18:04 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com: Hi all, I noticed a user adding some individual grave sites of ordinary people and am wondering what the recommended tagging is, if any. Here are some things I could find being used (are there others?): - cemetery=grave [1] taginfo: 726 uses this seems bad tagging to me, because a grave is not a type of cemetery. I agree--should there be a stronger statement against using this on the wiki page? (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:landuse%3Dcemetery) Or maybe send ceyockey a message? - grave=* [2] taginfo: 17 uses could be OK, what are the values? For the little actual usage, it's mostly grave=yes. There are many (maybe too many?) additional tagging values on the proposal page I linked to. - historic=tomb, tomb=* [3] taginfo: 3087 uses total, of which 1778 are tomb=tombstone (but the wiki notes this is only for important or well-known persons) IMHO you could use this for all kind of people, if the tagging makes sense at all in this way. Not sure if tomb is a word suitable for an ordinary grave, I have originally introduced this tag for more significant structures like tumuli in etruscan necropoles or rock-cut tombs or columbariums or mausoleums or pyramids. tomb=tombstone might also be strange tagging because a tombstone is not a subtype of a tomb, or is it? Someone has added this to the tomb page but without further notice on the mailing lists. If tomb is a suitable term, I think the value should be something like ordinary_grave or grave and not tombstone which is really a part of a tomb/grave and not a type of tomb itself. Tomb sounds a little odd in English for a regular grave. But, clearly people are searching for something to use. I did some looking via overpass for the three tag schemes I mentioned above, and even for the first two (cemetery=grave and grave=*) most graves seem to be well-known figures, with many of them also tagged historic=*. So, it doesn't help much to get at what to do for the grave of an ordinary person. The vast majority of grave tags seem to be in Germany. Has there been any sort of discussion of this on the DE list? Thanks, Brad 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging for graves?
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com wrote: In addition, there is a type=person relationship [4] which appears to be recommended for this kind of use. This is typically stuff that are not related to any geographic feature. It's really using OSM just as a free access database, bypassing the restrictions of wikipedia. Something that could be deleted without regret on both database and wiki. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
