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
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
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
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
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
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
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 -
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
