2011/2/1 Chris Hill <[email protected]>: > On 01/02/11 12:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> 2011/2/1 Chris Hill<[email protected]>: > 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 and other types too.
yes, wikipedia lists a whole lot of possible sub-classifications according to the form of the tumulus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus#Types%20of%20barrows >> For single graves we could have >> historic=grave which would mark the actual place where a person is >> buried. > > Yes, but in some cases multiple people are buried together, such as a family > plot, and mass graves deserve a specific tag too. we could have something like step_count for steps, i.e. tagging a value (e.g. grave_count) for the amount of people buried including "mass" and "several" for rough estimates. >> For bigger structures (collections=field of tombs/graves, >> distinct part of a cemetary) there could be another tag (maybe what >> you are after if tagging memorials like 1914-19). > Many of the memorials I'm interested in are not at the actual site of a > burial, which is why I think historic=memorial is best in those cases, but > some are tombs or graves, hence my interest in your suggestions. would you have a need to tag places as both, memorial and grave the same time? This would maybe speak against historic=grave. > Necropolis is an interesting special case, if people are living there maybe > place=necropolis is best. I don't know enough to offer a firm suggestion. > Some ancient cemeteries are now under modern settlements, but that's not the > same thing. I won't give it a dedicated place-tag actually, the ones in Cairo are probably better described with place=suburb (according OSM-meaning as "named part of the city" not as "suburban area") for the inhabited place, and a different tag (from the historic-range) for the historical structure. The necropolis I am mapping are not inhabited and have never been to my knowledge --- hm, maybe place=necropolis is not bad ;-), places do cover more then inhabited places in OSM (think of islands, localities, etc.). Currently I was more thinking about something like historic=archaeological_site, site_type=necropolis. The page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Darchaeological_site lists also site_type=tumulus field=yes for places with several tumuli, but this doesn't completely cover the necropolis I a mapping, as there are not only tumuli. necropolis would be more generic and could be refined with mapping the distinct features present inside the area. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
