Hi, > Sorry, I should also have said ... there are two tags because someone > cared enough about the difference to want to differentiate them. I'm > surprised whoever that was hasn't spoken up.
That may be me. :) I do see a clear distinction between a grave yard and cemetery. I care little how they are actually tagged though. A grave yard is the land surrounding a church that is used for burying. The emphasis is that it is the land that belongs to the church, on which there is a building that is called "a church". People do not look at the grave yard and think "that's a church", although they will understand that the land is associated with the church. The land could also be described as church land that happens to be full of bodies. However cemeteries are purely for the use of burying people, people do not go to the area to worship. They will go through a grave yard to get to a church to worship though. I base this distinction on when you point at a cemetery and ask "What is that?" a local will respond "It's a cemetery.", ask the same question in a church graveyard and you get "It's a grave yard." Hope that doesn't muddy the waters even more. I believe many people will see the distinction, but I personally do not care now they are tagged. I am working to a semi-established scheme. These kind of discussions are worthwhile however little ever seems to come of them. I raise the very good idea, which I know could put us off on a tangent, of Tom Chance and Nop of "Working Groups". Originally from the problems of footways etc, however this one does seem easier to solve. If I recall the idea was to have a working group (somehow democratically elected), that would have submissions for additions and changes made to them and they would discuss and decide what tags would be kept etc. This would be done by a "carrot and stick" method, ie the working group would have the developers of KeepRight, Potlatch, JOSM and the renderer involved. Such that a Working Group Approved tag would be default options in these things (or rendered). As such more people would use them, providing overall consistency and a defacto reference for those looking for tagging values. However the database would continue as it is, with anyone using the tags that they feel are appropriate. This was a very fuzzy idea and seemed to die down as the discussion about footways etc died down. I'm sure it will come back and I'm sure other similar issues would arrive. I am happy to continue with the status quo, however I can see things becoming increasingly difficult as the map becomes more complete. At the moment these things are not worth worrying about as the blank bits of the map require more attention (ie get it in the database first, then worry about tagging it). Again, I am happy to discuss the idea of a Working Group for Tagging Proposals. Although it should probably go in another thread. I can't find the old one. I now feel I've said too much, :) Ciarán _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
