Proposed features/Grave

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Grave Tagging
Status: Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by: OSM-RU
Tagging: grave=*
Applies to: Node Area
Definition: A grave is a location where remains of a human or an animal are buried
Rendered as: Grave icon
Drafted on: 2014-07-10
RFC start: 2014-12-15
Vote start: 2015-07-08
Vote end: 2015-07-22

Proposal

To define tagging scheme for graves, mainly ones without historic value.

Tagging

Tagging Description Status
grave=yes/columbarium/crypt/cenotaph/scatter_site/* Shows type of the grave, "yes" value implies simple grave mandatory
memorial=yes/no/cross/headstone/sculpture/* Shows type of the memorial, "yes" value does not specify any type, use "no" if there is no memorial at all recommended
subject:name=* Full name of the buried one presented on a memorial recommended
subject:species=human/cat/dog/* Species of the buried one "human" by default, mandatory otherwise
subject:image=no/photo/engraving/bust/sculpture/* Type of the visual representation of the buried one on a memorial. Use "no" if no such image is present recommended
subject:birth=YYYY-MM-DD/no/yes

grave:death=YYYY-MM-DD/no/yes

Birth and death dates as they are presented on the memorial. Use "no" if a date is not specified on the memorial. Use "yes" if a date is present on the memorial, but its value is unknown to the mapper recommended
subject:wikidata=* Wikidata link to the buried one if exists. Example: Q30875 optional
cemetery=* Cemetery name use only if cemetery can't be extracted by other means (e.g. grave is not inside landuse=cemetery or amenity=grave_yard)
religion=* Religion associated with the grave (add denomination=* tag if possible). Use "no" when there is no such association (e.g. in case of atheist graves). recommended
inscription=* Inscription text as it is presented on the memorial optional
ref=* Unique reference to the grave inside of the cemetery (this could include reference to cemetery sector) optional
wikidata=* If the tomb is featured in Wikidata, list the item identifier here. Example: Q12432989 optional

Additionally, historic=memorial could be used if the grave has historic value.

This scheme could also be used for memorial "graves", e.g. cenotaphs, scatter sites, etc.

If there is sizable building (e.g. in case of crypt) it's recommended to additionally use building=*.

Multiple burials

In cases when several beings belong to one grave (e.g. mass grave) information about them could be presented by subjectN:* scheme. For example:
grave=cenotaph
memorial=headstone
subject:name=Mr. Smith
subject:birth=<mr. Smith's date of birth>
subject:death=<mr. Smith's date of death>
subject2:name=Ms. Smith
subject2:birth=<ms. Smith's date of birth>
subject2:death=<ms. Smith's date of death>

If there is a list of buried ones on the memorial, then subject:* should be used for first entry, subject2:* for second and so forth. subjectN:* could be omitted, if Nth element of list is not presented on memorial (e.g. name was erased) or unreadable.

Voting

Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was rejected with 3 votes for, 1 vote against and 1 abstention.

There was both a lack of support, as well as serious issues raised, both here and on the mailing list [1]. The proposal should return to RFC to address the issues raised by the community.

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Newpavlov (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Navigator of memory (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. R41phA (talk) A cenotaph is in memory of an individual or group of individuals whose remains are interred elsewhere and is therefore a memorial and not a grave. So grave=cenotaph is incorrect.
Note part about "This scheme could also be used for memorial "graves", e.g. cenotaphs, scatter sites, etc.". Yes, it uses somewhat broader meaning of "grave" than usually, but in my opinion it's quite common for tagging schemes. Probably it would have been better to include this into header "definition", but unfortunately too late for that.--Newpavlov (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Sorry that I didn't contribute to the discussion in time. We need a tag for graves, and I like the straightforward approach of this proposal, but it needs some improvements. There should be no grave=yes but a historic=grave or man_made=grave main tag with an optional grave=* subtag (as proposed) to further specify it. As others already pointed out, grave=cenotaph does not conform to the key definition, so you should change either one. It is never too late to correct that. You may stop and restart voting. As to memorial=*, this is a subtag of historic=memorial, so I doubt that it fits here. A grave is not a memorial, is it? This should be clarified. If graves are considered memorials, they should certainly be tagged as historic=memorial + memorial=grave. --Fkv (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Макс (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Examples

  • [2]
  • [3] - has two Wikidata tags

Opinions and Comments

See Talk:Proposed_features/Grave for further suggestions.

See also