Proposal talk:Historic cemetery
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proposal:Historic cemetery page and its related topics. |
---|
|
Why not landuse=cemetery?
How should mappers know when to use this new tag instead of just using landuse=cemetery? What is the definition that makes it historic? --Jeisenbe (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay, @Jeisenbe: I have expanded the "Rationale" section to clarify this point following the factors listed on historic=*.
- Thank you for your comments. This is the first proposal I am preparing and all help is welcome.--Dcapillae (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Rhode Island Historical Cemeteries
- In Rhode Island, there is an entire class of cemetery called "historical cemetery". Each of them has an official state sign that says "RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL CEMETERY <Town/City Name> #<number>" Most of them date back to colonial times and many of them are very overgrown or only have one or two headstones along with the official sign. Today these are tagged as ordinary cemeteries, but it would be great to have specific tagging for historical cemeteries. In a few rare cases there are historic cemeteries that do still accept new burials, but in general they are relics to the 18th-19th centuries. So at least here, the definition is easy -- they are explicitly and comprehensively denoted by posted signs put up by the state government. I support this proposal.
- --ZeLonewolf (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
What about grave yards?
Would a historic grave yard at a church be tagged as amenity=grave_yard + historic=cemetery, or something else? --Jeisenbe (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, Jeisenbe. The proposal is only for cemeteries. Its scope of application is limited to cemeteries in the sense in which they are understood in OpenStreetMap: «places usually independent of place of worship and not close to a place o worship». I have added this to the proposal to clarify this point as well. --Dcapillae (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- The value in the tag historic=* is used to characterise the type of feature. On the Key:historic page, contributors are encouraged to use values that will be widely recognised and are in common use. The value "cemetery" for a historic cemetery is very recognisable and commonly used to refer to a historic cemetery. The scope of application of this proposal is limited to recognisable cemeteries as described for landuse=cemetery. --Dcapillae (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- P.S.: An amenity=grave_yard and a landuse=cemetery are different features in OSM and are mapped separately. What would be an appropriate value for a historic grave yard? I can imagine a very good one, but my opinion in that case is outside the scope of this proposal. --Dcapillae (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Consecrated vs not consecrated
I think this is a good idea, I had thought about proposing something similar myself. Would this tag only apply to consecrated ground? There are many "burial sites" (that's what they're called on old maps as opposed to graveyards) in Ireland where unbaptised children were buried; they're called Cillín. I was also thinking that mass graves from workhouses, orphanages and wars might need a tag that denotes bodies being or having been there without the ground being consecrated. B-unicycling (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @B-unicycling: Whether the cemetery is consecrated or not consecrated should not be decisive (I think). The scope of the proposal is limited, however. The tag historic=cemetery should be used to map historic cemeteries. The site needs to be a cemetery as described in landuse=cemetery. If the burial site fits that description and also has historic significance as described in historic=*, then yes. --Dcapillae (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Archived draft proposal
After discussion on the tagging mailing list, I have decided to archive the draft using the template {{Archived proposal}}. The tag historic=cemetery has been documented in the wiki as a tag in use but previously undocumented according to what was discussed on the mailing list.
Before archiving the draft, I will add a few last details that I had planned to add to it. I will then archive it so that it will be available as a reference resource if needed. --Dcapillae (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)