Proposal talk:Tombs

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)

tomb=tombstone

IMHO a tombstone is not a subtype of a tomb (but a part of it) and should not be mapped as historic=tomb therefor. --Dieterdreist (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

I don't know, as it isn't a tomb, it is not covered by this proposal. Tags that can be used in addition will be mentioned on the tag documentation page, but they are not part of the proposal. --Dieterdreist (talk) 16:24, 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.

Warin61 (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

Status

Are you planning to proceed with vote, or is it an abandoned proposal? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2020 (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)

IMHO, if you do not plan to put up a proposal for a vote, then it is formally abandoned. If you want this to be voted on, I’m all for it. Something B (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I will put it for voting. --Dieterdreist (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)