2011/2/1 Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com>: > 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
