Proposal:Wayside cross
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| wayside_cross | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Proposed (under way) |
| Proposed by: | * |
| Tagging: | historic=wayside_cross |
| Statistics: | |
Summary
Shows the location of a wayside cross.
Optionally a name and the construction year can be added with the name and start_date keys respectively.
Pictures can be found here:
Tags
<k="historic" v="wayside_cross">
Examples
Comments
- Wayside crosses are different from wayside shrines, therefore I proposed to use a separate key for them. --Schuetzm 19:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is just a type of memorial so add type=cross to Tag:historic=memorial. Lsces 07:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. While mapping a wayside_cross, I'd never consider it being a memorial. I support the extra value. --SlowRider 10:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Could someone explain clearly the difference with a wayside shrine ? is that the cross, meaning it's a Christian shrine ? Pieren 08:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- the cross is just a cross, mostly with Jesus on it. The shrine is a tiny bothy with a religious symbol in it (e.g. Virgin Mary). That's my interpretation of wayside cross and -shrine S.A.L. 09:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is my sound. I make artless icon from Austrian topografic tradition:
. Is it so for Cross of the Peace(peace-offrering for morder), Cross Stones, Pictish stones#class 3? hanoj 20:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC) - I think it's important to add that this doesn't refer to the small wayside crosses that often mark the location of deadly accidents. --Deelkar (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I propose. But what's about a cross on a mountain top? --Markus 18:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- That would be not a wayside_cross, and I think it's also not historical. I would say it's a tag=summit_cross ... but don't know which tag can be used there ... S.A.L. 09:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have seen natural=peak with summit:cross=yes --Walterschloegl 19:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I propose to historic=wayside_cross, too S.A.L. 09:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have some concerns about tagging these things as "historic". They are actively worshipped by many people. Processions are made on special occasions to these crosses. Churches are tagged as "amenity", but not as "historic" (amenity is also a little bit odd, but that's a different issue). What about "man_made=wayside_cross"?
- +1 -- Malenki 17:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'd subsume a wayside cross under amenity=place_of_worship, not really as historic, as it is not left there or kept up for nostalgic reasons, but for its original purpose. Ipofanes 21:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think it is a good idea to map cross. At least in France, they are commonly rendered in commercial maps since they are usefull to find its way ("turn right at the cross, then..."). However, I see no difference between a cross that would be historic or a one that would be brand new. Moreover, I think that a summit cross (might be far from any way) is also worth mapping since it can be observed from far away and usefull for those using a compass. Then a tag man_made=cross would seem more adequate to me. This can be combined with historic=yes if necessary.
