[Tagging] historic tagging - graves, tombs
How do you tag single (historic) burial places? I am currently looking for a tagging scheme to structure these kind of places, but am unsure about the wording. My suggestions would be * historic=grave or * historic=tomb for the main tag. Subtags would then be grave=pyramid grave=mausoleum grave=tumulus grave=dolmen grave=war_grave grave=crypt and others that you maybe name and maybe also grave=cenotaph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mausoleum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolmen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_grave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenotaph This could be combined with historic:civilization for better description. What do you say about the wording? Would tomb or grave be suited better? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging - graves, tombs
On 01/02/11 11:48, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: How do you tag single (historic) burial places? I am currently looking for a tagging scheme to structure these kind of places, but am unsure about the wording. My suggestions would be * historic=grave or * historic=tomb for the main tag. Subtags would then be grave=pyramid grave=mausoleum grave=tumulus grave=dolmen grave=war_grave grave=crypt and others that you maybe name and maybe also grave=cenotaph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mausoleum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolmen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_grave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenotaph This could be combined with historic:civilization for better description. What do you say about the wording? Would tomb or grave be suited better? A grave tends to be a hole dug in the ground to bury one or more bodies, a tomb is more of a structure, so they are not mutually exclusive. I would group pyramid, mausoleum, tumulus, dolmen and crypt as a tomb grave=cenotaph doesn't feel right to me, usually there is not an actual burial there, it is more of a monument. historic=monument,monument=cenotaph seems better to me. I am interested because I am working on a project for the Imperial War Museum improving the data held for memorials including war memorials, cenotaphs, grave memorials, street shrines, rolls of honour, church memorials such as windows etc. We are working on the memorials for 1914-19 war at present. Most of these are historic=memorial to me, but historic=grave is interesting. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging - graves, tombs
2011/2/1 Chris Hill : >> What do you say about the wording? Would tomb or grave be suited better? >> > A grave tends to be a hole dug in the ground to bury one or more bodies, a > tomb is more of a structure, so they are not mutually exclusive. > I would group pyramid, mausoleum, tumulus, dolmen and crypt as a tomb I see. I think that's the one I am after. I have addional complexity as in some tumuli there is several graves (not sure if they are graves, they are not dug into the earth but constructed chambers), with separate entrances, and known under different names (one for the tumulus and one for each burial place). > grave=cenotaph doesn't feel right to me, usually there is not an actual > burial there, it is more of a monument. historic=monument,monument=cenotaph > seems better to me. yes, it's not a place where actually a dead body was put, it is like an "empty grave", though with similar appearance to a real grave. I don't need this at the moment, so I suggest to keep it out from grave/tomb (or better document your suggestion in monument). > I am interested because I am working on a project for the Imperial War > Museum improving the data held for memorials including war memorials, > cenotaphs, grave memorials, street shrines, rolls of honour, church > memorials such as windows etc. We are working on the memorials for 1914-19 > war at present. Most of these are historic=memorial to me, but > historic=grave is interesting. OK, according to your comment I should better suggest historic=tomb to tag bigger structures, right? For single graves we could have historic=grave which would mark the actual place where a person is buried. For bigger structures (collections=field of tombs/graves, distinct part of a cemetary) there could be another tag (maybe what you are after if tagging memorials like 1914-19). I also need this for the whole structure (in my case it's several Etruscan necropoli). Not sure if tagging these places like a cemetary would be appropriate. I remember from Cairo Egypt that people were actually living inside the ancient necropolis, so tagging them like an actual cemetary would be confusing. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging - graves, tombs
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:48 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > grave=pyramid > grave=mausoleum > grave=tumulus > grave=dolmen My (admittedly shallow) understanding was that there was some debate about whether all tumuluses and dolmens were in fact tombs. This is an instance where I think a flatter structure might be safer: historic=tumulus historic=dolmen historic=stone_circle historic=cromlich historic=standing_stones Having "pyramid" a subtag under "tomb" just feels wrong, also. Definitely tomb rather than grave, in any case. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging - graves, tombs
2011/2/1 Steve Bennett : > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:48 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > My (admittedly shallow) understanding was that there was some debate > about whether all tumuluses and dolmens were in fact tombs. This is an > instance where I think a flatter structure might be safer: I am not an expert either, but according to my knowledge tumuli and dolmen are necessarily kind of tombs (if you can cite some text that states the opposite I would indeed be interested). Maybe the exceptions that didn't serve as burial place aren't to be considered tumulus? > historic=tumulus > historic=dolmen > historic=stone_circle > historic=cromlich > historic=standing_stones the thing is that I expect the number of different burial structures used in OSM to raise with the time, and having a general tag for these kind of things and then subtag might ease the work with the data. On the other hand I agree: if there are structures that are considered to be dolmen or tumuli but are not intended for burial purposes this systematics would not work. > Having "pyramid" a subtag under "tomb" just feels wrong, also. This because not all pyramids are used as burial places, or because even the ones that were won't be called tomb? In the first case, you simply wouldn't tag all pyramids as tombs, but the ones where a burial took place (or was intended when they were built). > Definitely tomb rather than grave, in any case. thank you. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging - graves, tombs
On 01/02/11 12:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/2/1 Chris Hill: What do you say about the wording? Would tomb or grave be suited better? A grave tends to be a hole dug in the ground to bury one or more bodies, a tomb is more of a structure, so they are not mutually exclusive. I would group pyramid, mausoleum, tumulus, dolmen and crypt as a tomb I see. I think that's the one I am after. I have addional complexity as in some tumuli there is several graves (not sure if they are graves, they are not dug into the earth but constructed chambers), with separate entrances, and known under different names (one for the tumulus and one for each burial place). Many tumuli do have multiple graves in them. Sometimes these are small stone-lined burials known as cists (kists) sometimes simply a pot containing cremated remains and other types too. Tumuli were in use over such a long period of time that traditions changed over the period, but a tumulus was usually built for a single burial then often extended or reused for later burials, sometimes more than a thousand years later. Very rarely do the remains still survive, so usually the most you can say about a tumulus is that it exists in a specific place, not who or how many people were buried there or when. The style and shape gives information about the a final date it was last modified, but only to perhaps a 500 year and not much about when it was first used. grave=cenotaph doesn't feel right to me, usually there is not an actual burial there, it is more of a monument. historic=monument,monument=cenotaph seems better to me. yes, it's not a place where actually a dead body was put, it is like an "empty grave", though with similar appearance to a real grave. I don't need this at the moment, so I suggest to keep it out from grave/tomb (or better document your suggestion in monument). I am interested because I am working on a project for the Imperial War Museum improving the data held for memorials including war memorials, cenotaphs, grave memorials, street shrines, rolls of honour, church memorials such as windows etc. We are working on the memorials for 1914-19 war at present. Most of these are historic=memorial to me, but historic=grave is interesting. OK, according to your comment I should better suggest historic=tomb to tag bigger structures, right? I think so, but I'm interested in other views too. For single graves we could have historic=grave which would mark the actual place where a person is buried. Yes, but in some cases multiple people are buried together, such as a family plot, and mass graves deserve a specific tag too. I would add some inscription info (probably not the full inscription we have a 255 char limit I think). I add would add UKNIWM_ref=* for the UK National Inventory of War Memorials ref, so all other details could be looked up from there, though a more general ref might be better. For bigger structures (collections=field of tombs/graves, distinct part of a cemetary) there could be another tag (maybe what you are after if tagging memorials like 1914-19). Many of the memorials I'm interested in are not at the actual site of a burial, which is why I think historic=memorial is best in those cases, but some are tombs or graves, hence my interest in your suggestions. I also need this for the whole structure (in my case it's several Etruscan necropoli). Not sure if tagging these places like a cemetary would be appropriate. I remember from Cairo Egypt that people were actually living inside the ancient necropolis, so tagging them like an actual cemetary would be confusing. Necropolis is an interesting special case, if people are living there maybe place=necropolis is best. I don't know enough to offer a firm suggestion. Some ancient cemeteries are now under modern settlements, but that's not the same thing. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] historic tagging - graves, tombs
2011/2/1 Chris Hill : > On 01/02/11 12:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> 2011/2/1 Chris Hill: > Many tumuli do have multiple graves in them. Sometimes these are small > stone-lined burials known as cists (kists) sometimes simply a pot containing > cremated remains and other types too. yes, wikipedia lists a whole lot of possible sub-classifications according to the form of the tumulus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus#Types%20of%20barrows >> For single graves we could have >> historic=grave which would mark the actual place where a person is >> buried. > > Yes, but in some cases multiple people are buried together, such as a family > plot, and mass graves deserve a specific tag too. we could have something like step_count for steps, i.e. tagging a value (e.g. grave_count) for the amount of people buried including "mass" and "several" for rough estimates. >> For bigger structures (collections=field of tombs/graves, >> distinct part of a cemetary) there could be another tag (maybe what >> you are after if tagging memorials like 1914-19). > Many of the memorials I'm interested in are not at the actual site of a > burial, which is why I think historic=memorial is best in those cases, but > some are tombs or graves, hence my interest in your suggestions. would you have a need to tag places as both, memorial and grave the same time? This would maybe speak against historic=grave. > Necropolis is an interesting special case, if people are living there maybe > place=necropolis is best. I don't know enough to offer a firm suggestion. > Some ancient cemeteries are now under modern settlements, but that's not the > same thing. I won't give it a dedicated place-tag actually, the ones in Cairo are probably better described with place=suburb (according OSM-meaning as "named part of the city" not as "suburban area") for the inhabited place, and a different tag (from the historic-range) for the historical structure. The necropolis I am mapping are not inhabited and have never been to my knowledge --- hm, maybe place=necropolis is not bad ;-), places do cover more then inhabited places in OSM (think of islands, localities, etc.). Currently I was more thinking about something like historic=archaeological_site, site_type=necropolis. The page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Darchaeological_site lists also site_type=tumulus field=yes for places with several tumuli, but this doesn't completely cover the necropolis I a mapping, as there are not only tumuli. necropolis would be more generic and could be refined with mapping the distinct features present inside the area. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
