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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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? >> >> (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 >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
