From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Nice additional tag, thanks. As a newbie to OSM I expected such a tag and was surprised to find that it had only just been added.

For the UK it would be good if mappers could add the appropriate link to the UK National Inventory of War Memorials page for the memorial. Cheers -- John (Daytona2·Talk·Contribs) 09:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


I would suggest a tag inscription=* for reproducing any inscriptions on the memorial. Any comments? --abunai 17:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea. Perhaps even inscription:XX=* for different languages if that's the case. --Nighto 23:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Tagwatch shows inscription=* is used, however memorial:text=* is more widely used (1979 uses) --GabeH 18:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, do you think that this is the right tag for sculptures like busts? --Nighto 23:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If the bust is set up as a memorial over a person, why not? If the purpose of the bust is more decorative, than find something else. Isn't there any tags for sculptures in general? That could be needed for parks like Vigeland Parken in Oslo, Norway, which displays several sculptures by Gustav Vigeland. The entire park can be seen as a memorial over the artist, not each single sculpture. --Skippern 01:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Very long inscriptions may be added to WikiSource, and tagged here with, say, inscription_url=*. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm using the URL tag for photos of the inscription too, I hope that's fine. Of course I store the photo on Commons. See --Nemo (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Commemorative trees

Please see discussion at Talk:Tag:natural=tree#Commemorative trees. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


Some mappers at Germany are using memorial:name=* within the Stolpersteine-Project. name=* was not fitting, because a Stolperstein is only dedicated to a victim. This might also be applicable to some boards without names itself, but which are dedicated to a Person. I think this key-name is not a good choice, because it seems to be a duplicate to the name=*-Tag (another proposals for the same thing is person:name, which is not satisfying, too).

It's worth looking at wikipedia=* and particularly the proposed wikipedia:subject=* for memorials to notable people (or events; there are also memorials to named animals) who are the subject of Wikipedia articles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
So the Wikipedia-Proposal implies a tagging like memorial:subject=*. As an alternative: I thought about memorial:designation=*, which might be not very specified. So +1 to memorial:subject=*.--Cracklinrain (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


memorial=* has been massively changed to memorial:type=* by user malenki in Germany, thus taginfo usage statistics are 99% influenced by a single contributor. This variant is not the result of a general consensus, neither the usual tagging rules used in OSM (for instance, "building=school" is not "building:type=school", etc) and is therefore not recommended in the main documentation. --Pieren (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. memorial=* seems more logical to me, and keys with ":type" or "_type" are prone to misspellings because it's difficult to memorize when to use colon (e.g. tower:type, maxspeed:type, seamark:type, mtb:type) and when to use underscore (e.g. artwork_type, map_type, reservoir_type, border_type). --Fkv (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
As for "malenki removed memorial=stolperstein": Thats not the case. See for example , where malenki removed a wikipedia tag (and rightly so, because the wikipedia article is for the general project "Stolpersteine", and not for this individual stolperstein. Or see the one round the corner where he did exactly the same thing: . I think because memorial:type=* is widely accepted in germany at least for the stolperstein project, this use should be documented on the wiki accordingly. --Gormo (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Pieren: you wrote:
memorial=* has been massively changed to memorial:type=* by user malenki in Germany, thus taginfo usage statistics are 99% influenced by a single contributor. This variant is not the result of a general consensus,
Please prove this wild speculation -- malenki 09:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Malenki - surely it is for you to show that your changes have consensus? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@Andy: Consensus on what? -- malenki 12:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Please provide a link to a stolperstein node (or OSM IDs) where malenki has performed the action you critizise. You can - for example - use the deep history tool at to check which particular user changed what tags in what changeset for a specific object. I think you are misinterpreting OSM object histories. --Gormo (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Obviously neither Pieren nor Andy "Pigsonthewing" Mabbett are able to or want to substantiate their allegations/assumptions with facts. It seems the former has quite contributing to OSM altogether. -- malenki 11:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I think they are misinterpreting the object histories. I think this is an unfortunate misunderstanding on "their" part, it's not malice but incompetence/errors in understanding. I think this should not escalate. --Gormo (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I have looked at the tag history and the key memorial was at no time higher than memorial:type, rather the latter was used from the beginning and "memorial" only gained recently. Still there are significantly more memorial:type than memorial tags in the database as of now. --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


I would like to add artist_name to the page for tagging the artist like on tourism=artwork, can that be done without rolling out a proposal? :) Hakuch (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason why you could not. --Escada (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Real persons and events only, right?

Am I right, that historic=memorial, being a tag within historic=* key, should always reflect objects, commemorating real people or events, including abstract ones (like, "Memorial of Unknown Soldier", which commemorates all real fallen soldiers, whose remains haven't been identified)? If yes, shouldn't it be explicitly told in tag description? There are sculptures of fictional characters or artworks, inspired by fictional events, which took place in non-documentary films or literature, and I think, these should always be mapped as artwork, not as memorials. --BushmanK (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd say yes. A "memorial" to Gandalf the Grey (from Lord of the Rings) or Lord Vetinari (from Discworld) would be an artwork, not a memorial. The historic-namespace should be reserved for historic events that, according to history, really took place. There might be grey areas (a memorial to something Jesus Christ did somewhere, according to the Bible), which I would see less strict (because there are historic interpretations of the Bible and other religions' texts). --Gormo (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Bible and its interpretations are not a part of evidence-based science, so I don't see why it's "grey area". However, memorial from your example isn't an artwork for tourists either, so it's another question, how to tag it properly. --BushmanK (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I have 2 memorials that are to animals. One to Mathew Flinders cat Trim the other to Australian horses in WW1, there are more of these WW1 horse memorials within Australia. So these real events, fictional events it is a possibility. Oh "dog on the tucker box" ... a 'legend' humm 'dedicated to the pioneers' Humm I am certain there will be a monument to some myth somewhere. Warin61 (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

memorial= values are orthogonal

Values of memorial= are mainly representing a physical form of a memorial, such as a statue, a plaque, and others. However, memorial=war_memorial indicates an event, which a memorial is dedicated to. Obviously, it creates the false dichotomy, when a mapper has to make a choice, what to indicate: a physical form or a dedication. This is totally wrong, and I suppose, that was a ground for introducing memorial:type= key. Currently, there is no other way to describe a war memorial and its form, except to use both memorial:type= and memorial=. --BushmanK (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You should take a look at the German page. There is a statistics table, which at least at Stolerstein has an overweight for memorial:type=stolperstein. This can not be so easily changed with the rules of OSM. An have a look at Historical_Objects/Map_Properties. I would be happy if the things are arranged more clearly. --geozeisig (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
First, I just wanted to mention this obvious issue of this scheme. Second, I don't think we should worry about being able or not being able to change anything by "rules". Changes are made by changing (clarifying) documentation and editor presets. Not immediately, but there is nothing happening immediately in OSM. --BushmanK (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
+1 with BushmanK on both the scheme issue and the migration as a way of change. memorial:type=* is not very descriptive. Tagging could be something like memorial:event=* (war, WW2, WW1, death, rescue etc) and memorial:form= * (plaque, bench, statue, monolith etc). This is more descriptive than the over used and misunderstood 'type'. Warin61 (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)