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=
To tag obelisks I suggest
man_made=obelisk
an alternative could be
historic=obelisk
but some obelisks are actually not old, so historic might not yet be
an appropriate tag for them. In combination with historic:civilization
and historic:period they could still be clearly distinguished.
http://e
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 wou
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 an
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
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> To tag obelisks I suggest
>
> man_made=obelisk
>
> an alternative could be
>
> historic=obelisk
Definitely historic=obelisk, I think. It doesn't really matter if it's
*old*, it's still *historical*.
(But also consider what the distinc
On 01/02/2011 12:11, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
To tag obelisks I suggest
man_made=obelisk
an alternative could be
historic=obelisk
but some obelisks are actually not old, so historic might not yet be
an appropriate tag for them. In combination with historic:civilization
and historic:period t
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
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Craig Wallace wrote:
> As that Wikipedia article says, its just a particular style/shape of
> monument or memorial.
> So I think it would be best tagged as historic=monument or
> historic=memorial, plus a subtag for obelisk.
> Maybe something like monument:style=ob
2011/2/1 Steve Bennett :
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Craig Wallace wrote:
> Oh...and I just discovered obelisk is already mentioned here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landmark
>
> Taginfo has a grand total of 5 landmark=obelisk
Yes, I saw this as well. This page is not represe
2011/2/1 Craig Wallace :
> As that Wikipedia article says, its just a particular style/shape of
> monument or memorial.
> So I think it would be best tagged as historic=monument or
> historic=memorial, plus a subtag for obelisk.
> Maybe something like monument:style=obelisk ?
This could be a way,
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
2011/2/1 Steve Bennett :
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> To tag obelisks I suggest
>> man_made=obelisk
>> an alternative could be
>> historic=obelisk
>
> Definitely historic=obelisk, I think. It doesn't really matter if it's
> *old*, it's still *historical*.
no
On 01/02/2011 13:35, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2011/2/1 Craig Wallace:
As that Wikipedia article says, its just a particular style/shape of
monument or memorial.
So I think it would be best tagged as historic=monument or
historic=memorial, plus a subtag for obelisk.
Maybe something like monumen
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, wik
2011/2/1 Craig Wallace :
> their primary purpose. That purpose is to provide a place of worship. I
> think a tower can be a monument (and tagged as such), if that is why it was
> built
> I think both monument and memorial are (usually) for structures in memory of
> something.
think about the
2011/2/1 Lennard :
> Fortunately, for capital, we only use yes and not the other 2 variants in
> the main mapnik map. It's not logical to add these at this point. We already
> have to normalise true and 1 to yes for bridges and tunnels, and if those
> variants would disappear from the database and
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:58:44 +0100
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > Definitely historic=obelisk, I think. It doesn't really matter if
> > it's *old*, it's still *historical*.
>
>
> not all of them. A Las Vegas Obelisk is hardly to be called
> "historical".
historical=fake
:D
_
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:39:22 +0100
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> think about the Eiffel tower in Paris. It is (IMHO) clearly a
> monument, but it was originally built as a temporal structure for the
> world fair. I won't be a monument according to the definition given
> above.
I see people classif
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer writes:
> ... E.g.
> in Rome there is a lot of obelisks, and they are very easy to identify
> , but tagging their original purpose or what they should remind of
> might be disputed or hard to find out. ...
> Generally spoken, an obelisk (like a column) can
> be read as a "phal
The Relation:type=site proposal [1] has been around for over two
years, and I think it is a very useful relation, so I'd like to help
it get approved. Milliams is the original creator of the draft, though
I've cleaned up the proposal page and added some to the discussion,
and I'd like to bring your
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:35 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> This could be a way, but I am not yet convinced. Churches, temples and
> towers are also monuments, but we don't tag them currently as subtypes
> of monument. Indeed the tag historic=monument is very vague and
> therefor not very useful
I would prefer we normalize in the actual database instead of coming up with a
ton of transformations needed to convert the data to something meaningful. Bots
tend to have unintended consequences though, so if you want to do it yourself I
would just use XAPI to pull the data in to JOSM and chang
23 matches
Mail list logo
