2014-10-16 8:33 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <[email protected]>: > 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 [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
