- This tag can not be used on the same object as historic=archaeological_site - despite the fact that many archaeological sites are excavated tombs.
- There is no clear limit for notability, most likely this tag will be in future used to describe any grave. Even now, some people are using it this way. The same happened with natural=tree - originally defined as "lone or significant tree".
- There is no proposed tag to use for ordinary grave, further encouraging using this tag in way other than defined.
- if you have a site with just one tomb you can map both, the site and the tomb, with dedicated objects and their respective boundaries and if they happen to overlap you will just map it like this. Very often on one archaeological "site" there are several tombs.
- for one I don't see a real problem with people mapping single graves (dead people don't have any privacy or other personal rights), but they should not use the tag "tomb" for every "grave", because not every grave is a tomb.
- if you feel a lack of a tag you can simply propose it and see what the others think. I am not going to propose a tag for graves that are not tombs. --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
What landuse=* tag would best describe the area dedicated for a single tomb?
It would be pushing it to call it a cemetery (there is only one tomb containing the remains of only one person).
Itis not an archeological site (it's barely a hundred years old, the history is known and there's nothing to research or excavate).