responses inline On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected] > wrote:
> > 2014-10-16 16:14 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser <[email protected]>: > >> 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 to this. It seems strange to add the "grave:" > prefix to all keys, e.g. "ref", "inscription" etc. because typically you > can get this context by the object to which a tag is applied to. If this > context is not clear from the mapping than this is usually a sign that > there is some problem in the mapping (several entities mixed up into one > osm object). > > 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 the Discussion page. Do people tag birth/death dates along with historic=tomb? > 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 note that was on historic=tomb restricting its use mainly to notable people's burial sites. Do you think historic=tomb, tomb=tombstone should be used for "ordinary" graves or would a different tag be better? > cheers, > Martin > > PS: Usage of the cemetery=grave tag should be discouraged: single graves > aren't subtypes of cemeteries (and we shouldn't encourage different tagging > schemes for graves on cemeteries and graves on churchyards, at least IMHO). > > +1 Cheers, Brad
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
