> 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? >> > > > I'm not a native English speaker, but to me it seems strange. What do you think? I thought that an ordinary grave (a wooden coffin in a hole dug into the earth) won't qualify as "tomb" and that there was some structure required for a "tomb". I don't like tomb=tombstone because I'd see the tombstone (that's the same as a headstone, isn't it?) as part of a tomb or grave, but not as a subtype for the tomb as a whole in a way that the other values like pyramid, rock-cut tomb or tumulus are.
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 with a grave, the remains are buried underground. So in that sense, tomb=tombstone seems even more odd.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
