Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb

[sabas88]

2014-10-16 8:33 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-10-16 8:33 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb

[Mateusz Konieczny]

"and? You can add subtags to describe why a certain tomb is notable" - so
what is the point of
defining it as "where are buried important or well-known persons of their
era"?

2014-10-16 10:16 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
> 2014-10-16 8:33 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>
>> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-10-16 13:00 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> "and? You can add subtags to describe why a certain tomb is notable" - so
> what is the point of
> defining it as "where are buried important or well-known persons of their
> era"?



oh, thank you for pulling the attention to this. The cited sentence was
introduced in April this year here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahistoric%3Dtomb&diff=1017293&oldid=1014489

without any discussion, but appearently by translating from a German page.
In the 3 years before there was a redirect to this proposal page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/tombs

Where the definition is: "

This aims to be a tag for all kind of tombs: mausoleums, pyramids, simple
tombs, prehistoric tombs, tumuli, rock-cut tombs.

To tag the persons buried in a tomb, see the person
 relation and the
JOSM tomb
plugin ."



My suggestion would be to substitute the cited sentence with "This is a tag
for all kind of tombs, e.g. mausoleums, pyramids, simple tombs, prehistoric
tombs, tumuli, rock-cut tombs and others" or something similar.


cheers,

Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-10-10 19:13 GMT+02:00 sabas88 :

> I use
> amenity=drinking_water + drinkable=no
>


I agree with your own judgement that this is nonesense ;-)
IMHO we shouldn't tag like this.

This is not really comparable to entrance=exit (as any exit physically
might be used as an entrance as well, while drinking water is about water
that is drinkable (implying more than once)).

Also agree with Tobias, a water_tap would better fit into amenity.

Frankly, I believe water_tap is too generic given that we already have
established amenity=drinking_water for water taps that do emit drinking
water. At this point if you don't want to create conflicts with existing
tagging scheme, a water tap emitting water that is not drinkable (i.e. the
stuff that remains for tagging when all taps with drinking water are tagged
differently) could get a tag like amenity=raw_water or industrial_water.

I would believe it is also highly unprobable that there will be a water tap
for sewage water (there might be closures / valves of course, but this will
likely not be something that we'll map, or if we did, it will be a subtag
in some wastewater treatment / sewage tagging system and not in amenity=*).

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I think that it is a good idea, though it will make German translation out
of synch.

2014-10-16 14:28 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
> 2014-10-16 13:00 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>
>> "and? You can add subtags to describe why a certain tomb is notable" - so
>> what is the point of
>> defining it as "where are buried important or well-known persons of their
>> era"?
>
>
>
> oh, thank you for pulling the attention to this. The cited sentence was
> introduced in April this year here:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahistoric%3Dtomb&diff=1017293&oldid=1014489
>
> without any discussion, but appearently by translating from a German page.
> In the 3 years before there was a redirect to this proposal page:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/tombs
>
> Where the definition is: "
>
> This aims to be a tag for all kind of tombs: mausoleums, pyramids, simple
> tombs, prehistoric tombs, tumuli, rock-cut tombs.
>
> To tag the persons buried in a tomb, see the person
>  relation and the
> JOSM tomb plugin
> ."
>
>
>
> My suggestion would be to substitute the cited sentence with "This is a
> tag for all kind of tombs, e.g. mausoleums, pyramids, simple tombs,
> prehistoric tombs, tumuli, rock-cut tombs and others" or something similar.
>
>
> cheers,
>
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb

[Brad Neuhauser]

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  wrote:

>
>
> 2014-10-16 8:33 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>
>> 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
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-10-16 16:05 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> I think that it is a good idea, though it will make German translation out
> of synch.
>


I think the German version (like any other localized version) should be a
translation of the general version (English). The reason why it is now out
of sync is that it previously contained original (diverging and
contradictory) information which was then tried to sneak into the official
version (i.e. English) by referring to the German one.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-10-16 16:14 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser :

> 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 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?

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).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation, type=person

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-10-15 12:57 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> hird mistake : It is not strictly reserved for "notable" people and
> can be used to name all graves in a cemetery (which might be forbiden
> in some countries). Privacy is never mentionned. To solve this, you
> could enforce a link to wikipedia because they are already an
> "encyclopedia" and check people notability
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29). And
> once you create a link to wikipedia (or wikidata), you don't need the
> relation anymore-
>
>

apart from the question whether the relation is or isn't a good idea, I
wanted to point out that dead people do not have any privacy rights or
other personal rights (at least not in the jurisdictions I am aware of).

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-10-14 14:39 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić :

> I think we should have notability, like Wikipedia. I have been using
> buried:wikidata=*, and if someone can't get in Wikidata, then I think the
> same should apply with OSM



I believe requiring "notability" is not necessary, at least not as long as
we are talking about people entering this info manually and not about
imports. I would really not feel comfortable having others (here Wikidata)
decide what belongs into our database and what doesn't.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb

[Brad Neuhauser]

responses inline

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
> 2014-10-16 16:14 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser :
>
>> 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-10-16 17:09 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser :

> 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 have never done so (IIRR), but occassionally it could make sense (e.g. if
there was a famous battle or catastrophy and you wanted to point out that
the buried people died on that day or s.th. like that). And also for famous
people when it is known. Personally I have used historic=tomb for antique
tombs where those details aren't known (at least to me ;-) ).




>
>
>> 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.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb

[Brad Neuhauser]

> 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Problems with historic=tomb

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-10-16 18:05 GMT+02:00 Brad Neuhauser :

> 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.



Thank you for confirming, I have remove tomb=tombstone from the proposal.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging