Proposal talk:Historic=tombstone
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
what about not historic ones
How nonhistoric tombstones would be tagged? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose all tombstones can be considered historic in a way. After all, it's their very purpose to commemorate and/or record basic data about a person into relatively distant future and at some point they will inevitably pertain to history. Would that be stretching the definition of "historic" too much?
I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I fully agree, though, that stećci (plural) / stećak (singular) (also, it's "ć" not "č", nor "c" like in "stecci"), as WHC heritage, should be included, however this proposal and its discussion is, unfortunately, inactive (there was a proposal discussion here which unfortunately missed to address this issue Propsal: Tombs). There are more than 64 thousand of stećci i Bosnia and few thousands in neighboring countries. Therefore, stećci should be included as Tag:historic=tomb subtagging types tomb=stećak for nods usage in accordance with Tag:historic=tomb.. However, in most cases these medieval monuments are usually found in groupings, in form of historic graveyard / cemetery, with number of stećak's reaching hundreds. These graveyards should have possibility of being mapped as a way and in relations (like in case of Radimlja Necropolis), and in accordance with Tag:historic=cemetery should be mapped as historic=cemetery in combination that is offered there + tomb=stećak so that editors know the specific necropolis is consisted of these tombs. At this point I used historic=archaeological_site + archaeological_site=necropolis for the few graveyards which I mapped, and it seems appropriate to tag them as "necropolis", however, and as evident from Radimlja Necropolis, instead of tomb=tombstone we should have tomb=stećak (and/or necropolis type as "stećak" (or even "stećci")).--Santasa (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
