On 01/02/11 12:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2011/2/1 Chris Hill<o...@raggedred.net>:
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
