Proposal:Relation:person

person
Proposal status:	Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by:	Zbigniew Czernik
Tagging:	`type=person` Data item
Statistics:
Vote start:	2014-10-13
Vote end:	2014-10-27

Description

Relation to group elements related to person such as a date of birth, date of death, short description, specialty, etc. This kind of relation should be related with geographical object like grave, tomb, memorial etc.

Designation

The main purpose of this type=person relation is to link (bind) different objects describing a person in the data base (such as grave, memorial place). That kind of relation is meant to describe dead persons.

Note: For a living people that kind of relations should be created only if it is reasonable. Let's assume that good reason for creating that relations is "encyclopedity", that means existing of article about a person on Wikipedia.

Elements

type=person
name=<FirstName_LastName> - (e.g. name=Abraham Lincoln)
wikipedia=[[w:<article|<article]] - (e.g. wikipedia=Abraham Lincoln)
born=<date of birth> - (use format YYYY-MM-DD, e.g. 1920-11-30)
died=<date of death> - (use format YYYY-MM-DD, e.g. 2010-12-12)
description=<short_description> - a brief description of person, e.g. poet,King,mayor,Father,25 President ... (e.g. description=Poet, Painter)

religion=<religion> - e.g religion=christian (religion of the deceased, but the cemetery).
denomination=<denomination> - e.g. denomination=roman_catholic (denomination of the deceased, but the cemetery).

lived_in=<origin / where he lived>
family_name=<family name>

Role

You can add members to the relevant "roles" to the relation person

tomb (node/way) - grave, tomb, crypt, mausoleum

memorial (node/way) - a monument or memorial plaque set in the wall

Optional role

birthplace (node/way) - place of birth such as a house or city

deathplace (node/way) - place of death such as a house or city

child - descendant

parent

partner - husband / wife / cohabitant / lover

patronage (node/way/relacja) - deceased person having the patron

Example

For the mass grave

http://osmtools.org/groby/#lat=50.03678&lon=19.96008&z=17 (E.g.: Nagy)

Search graves

http://osmtools.org/groby/#lat=39.351&lon=-83.364&z=6 (E.g.: Lincoln)

Vote (closed)

Results of 4 days consultation : 26 "yes", 53 "no", 3 "blanks". Please help to find a better solution at Proposed features/Relation:person (rewrite).

I approve this proposal. We need this. WojtekK (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. We need this. Koszatek (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. We need this relation. Forestus (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. The best way to create massive tombs in OSM (example: http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/3d/40/d7/z14106685Q,Pomnik-poleglych-w-I-wojnie-swiatowej-zolnierzy-w-.jpg) Domiss (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. I agree with Zverik. We need this. Lks1 (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. We don't need this --chris66 (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. I change my vote, I don't approve some actual use for this relation like a giant database of just dead people -Good relation for every group of famous people- dhuyp (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC) (update 21:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC))
I approve this proposal. Good relation for find all places connected with specific person. Also I can find here a lot of stupid oppose votes. We are mapping lamp, bench but we can not map cementry? Why? This relation is not for building genealogy but for assigning person names for ex. tombs. What is wrong with you guys? Dotevo (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. We should be mapping tombs and their inscriptions, and not corpses and their families. --Jgpacker (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal.. You can use "name:wikipedia" to add this information, edit wikipedia page if required. Jseigneuret (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. OSM is not the appriopriate project for that. To collect this, you can use the "name:wikipedia" tag and query the database with e.g. Overpass_API. --Pieren (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Wikidata is already storing these kinds of relationships. Let's concentrate on the geographic component in OSM and refer to Wikidata where applicable. --Polyglot (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. because OSM is a geographical database, create an other project for that. Damouns (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal.. Wikidata is more appropriate than OSM for this type of data. The knife (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. for the same reasons as above. What might(!) make sense: a tag (not a relation) that is put on OSM objects to describe the link to a person (e.g. person:built_by=xxx, person:tomb=xxx, ...), whereby the link itself should point to wikipedia or wikidata. Disclaimer: this is just a quick thought, so it most certainly is utterly useless. --Imagic (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. this is not real geographical data, already available in wikidata, and easy to extract all the items with a wikipedia=XXX tag ! Ecologeek (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Crazy, just crazy. TomH (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. "name:wikipedia" is there, use it and avoid such "collection" relations Cquest (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. The usecase is too wide, OSM is not a genealogy db. The tombstone/memorial roles and name/wikipedia tags are the only ones that make sense. Maternity wards and war memorials belonging to 100s of relations would be a big problem. Vincent De Phily (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC) I would approve the proposal if it was restricted to tombs and memorials. Vincent De Phily (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Tagging the name and inscription on individual tombstones is one thing, but a relation to include lots of other places they ever went in their lifetime seems irrelevant to mapping the world. EdLoach (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Not a geographical data Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC) EDIT: I would not oppose Proposed features/Relation:person (rewrite) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

~~I oppose this proposal. sletuffe (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)~~

Changed my mind, I blank vote (Mean I'm interested in discussion about it, but it neither is a yes or a no). I wich there was more discussions expressing what are alternatives, what it will solve and doing that before starting a vote. sletuffe (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I approve this proposal. It has been created to describe the graves. All information in type:person relation come from the grave, which is very real thing. Zbigniew Czernik (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Actual information on the tomb can be already mapped, the buried person should be referenced to Wikidata --Sarchittuorg (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. like mentioned before, this is more a domain of Wikidata ... maybe you can insert there a data field with position of the grave. --Stephan75 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. --4rch (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. I see that most of you do not understand the significance of this relationship.

This is not a relationship to describe the tomb of famous people, only to describe all the graves that will be posted by users. Like the buildings. We not only describe the objects of famous people, but all of which are physically visible. Wikidata not used to record all the dead in the cemetery. --Władysław Komorek (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal. Math1985 (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Wikidata is a better place for this.
I approve this proposal. --Marek kleciak (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal. Kerosin (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. This does not need a relation. At most a link (like a wikipedia or wikidata link) so the additional information can be gathered there. As Wikipedia sometimes considers lemmas to be "not encyclopedic", I consider this to be "not geographic". We don't need to map the child,parent and partner relations f.e. --Sanderd17 (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. --FrViPofm (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. Dzido (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. Ppece (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Use Genealogy software instead. --zarl (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. --Escada (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC) The basics could perhaps be placed in an "inscription" tag in OSM, for the rest you might build something similar to http://usgwtombstones.org/
I approve this proposal. Gr4nd0 (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. To find the tombstone of a person, I would rather search for the person in wikidata or wikipedia and they may reference an object in OSM. This proposal seems to me as "Das Pferd von hinten aufzäumen.", "to put the cart before the horse" --ToniE (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. WTF with all those "no" votes? There are 1600 relations of this type already. Just deal with it. --Zverik (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. I strongly oppose this proposal.
Please build a separate database where you store data (e.g. place of birth, house of childhood, school, place of death) with coordinates or addresses and link them to geographic data using Nominatim, Overpass API etc.
There is the main rule in OSM that we map what's on the ground. We might map the name of a person who lies in a grave or if a house was named after a famous person.
You propose a collective relation (German translation) which is unwanted in OSM database! They might got deleted soon.
At OSM, we try to avoid data which might get us into trouble with personal rights and privacy. Do you want to handle Data Working Group requests by non-mappers to delete data every day? Do you want that OSM has to handle with Right to be forgotten? --Nakaner (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. Good relation for find all places connected with specific person --Surly (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. --Streckenkundler (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Use Wikidata and genealogy software, the essential data (birth, death) can be tagged on the tombstone-node, not in a relation Peb12345 (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. there are enough other ways, to get needed lists Bernd (talk)
I oppose this proposal. no need for it; use overpass or other programs to get the data you need. Osm is a database - use it! Wambacher (talk)
I oppose this proposal. osm-db is wrong point to do this --Okilimu (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Couchmapper (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal.--Surveyor54 (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. To tag a geographical feature with a description may be ok - but to search for all features related to a person can be done otherwise (Overpass) or elsewhere (database like wikipedia) --GeorgFausB (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. Michalg0x5a (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. This relation is usefull. Dammat (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Besser geeignet -> http://wiki-de.genealogy.net/Hauptseite --Geri-oc (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. we don't need this Saintam1 (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. I'm searching for a method, to use georefenced data for private genealogy data. This solution is interesting, but not to be used on an open georeferenced database. Better use a private overlay or use http://wiki-de.genealogy.net Thoschi (edits, contrib, wiki, heat map) 10:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. PT-53
I approve this proposal. We need this relation. Kendzi (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like to express a degree of incredulity at this proposal. Richard (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. Please check tomb with 4 people: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1939480712 How to do that without relation? With ";" separator? --Antblant (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like to express a degree of incredulity at this proposal. This is just crazy. Andrew Shadura (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Thomas8122 (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. Useful in tagging graves, memorials, etc. Already widely used. Kolen (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. The given example 1939480712 1939480712 is easy to model with 4 nodes side by side. No need for relations, keep it simple. Disputable if this information is useful in our db, but that was not the question here. To answer Ilya from taggingML: Even if something is used widely, a (negative) vote can move discussion forward to another (better?) approach of tagging. (See emergency=defibrillator) Put every dead person in a node, put the details on it. If he is important, add a wikidata link. Easy and understandable solution. --Zuse (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. Gscscnd (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. --Hedaja (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. EBin (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. Maliniorz (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Because this data is way better suited for wikidata, open genealogy databases or overlays in a separate database. --Gormo (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal.Basstoelpel (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Most arguments are already mentioned above. Additionally, the proposal gives very short explanations for relation members and some statements about dead or alive persons are missing. --austi1996 17:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. I don't think that our db is the right place to store such information Hkleen (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. Sheer fact that it's widely used says it's useful. Psadk (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. No, don't think OSM is the place to store info like this. Could easily be abused as a poor man's genealogy database. I'd support a subset, just what it is, a name and link to an external database. But no other personal details. --Davo (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. OSM is not an encyclopedia. Treinen (talk) 06:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. Ullus (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. Except perhaps that the relatives FreeExec (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. for me such things should go to wikidata or somewhere but this is not a real "geo thing" which OSM is intended for MichaelK (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. We don't need this data in OSM, Wikidata is more appropriate to use it. Lenny (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. --Simlox (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. for the same reason as Mateusz Konieczny and Treinen. --Fkv (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. We don't need this. Oekkel (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Use wikipedia for important persons, You can add geolocations there. --Werner2101 (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. We need this relation. Adomek1 (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Pieleric (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. We need this relation. Radmar (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. We need this relation. Udarnyk (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)