For tumulus there is already a definition: historic=archaeological_site + site_type=tumulus. --WalterSchloegl 17:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I also found this definition, but for tagging single tumuli part of a bigger site (the situation I mostly meet here) I prefer to tag them as tombs and tag the archeological_site for the whole. -- Dieterdreist 13:57, 5 April 2012 (BST)
I would propose rock_cut instead of rock-cut, because underline is much more in use than '-'. --WalterSchloegl 17:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- there is a difference between "rock-cut" and "rock_cut". The first is a composite word (rock-cut) the second would be two words seperated by a space ("rock cut"). In this case the word is rock-cut -- Dieterdreist 13:57, 5 April 2012 (BST)
- Can we begin to vote? --Władysław Komorek 09:25, 4 October 2012 (BST)
- After short discussion on the tagging ML today, I have removed the tomb=tombstone tag from this proposal. A tombstone is not a tomb and can mostly be found on graves that aren't tombs either. --Dieterdreist (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
How would you tag a grave/tombstone that does not match any of the other tomb=* values, or is the omission of the tomb tag sufficient? For example mapping a simple grave that happens to be a significant person, or micromapping of cemeteries.
It would also be nice to list suggested companion tags like inscription=*, and are there ways to tag name(s) and dates? LastGrape/Gregory 16:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
tomb=war_grave to war_tomb ?
As it is tombs that are to be tagged, graves should not be tagged. And this would be a better photo for that ? Other photos can be found on wikipedia - tomb unknown solider provided the above photo, there are others there.
- I am unsure about this. War grave is a significantly used value, maybe it should be kept? There are also many instances of tomb of the unknown soldier (in the real world), maybe it should be added as a special case? Maybe many of them are actually cenotaphs? --Dieterdreist (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- From my point of view this feature is well adopted and established. What do you want to get at with voting? What would it mean if the feature was approved or disapproved? If you’re going to put an abandoned proposal stamp on it, I’d rather want to have it voted ;-) otherwise I would keep it like it is. —Dieterdreist (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)