Proposal:Tombs

tombs
Proposal status:	Approved (active)
Proposed by:	dieterdreist
Tagging:	historic=tomb Data item
Applies to:	node,area
Definition:	for all kind of tombs
Statistics:
Rendered as:	*
Draft started:
Proposed on:	2011-02-09
RFC start:	2021-02-26
Vote start:	2021-03-21
Vote end:	2021-04-04

Summary

This aims to be a tag for all kind of tombs: mausoleums, pyramids, simple tombs, prehistoric tombs, tumuli, rock-cut tombs.

Also see the JOSM tomb plugin.

Tags

Main tag

The tag historic=tomb is a generic key for all kinds of tombs. Tagged on a node, area or on a relation.

Current usage of the main tag

• historic=tomb

• tomb=*

Subtagging types

Add the tag tomb=* to be more specific:

Tag	Description	taginfo stats	OSM Carto	Picture
tomb=tumulus	tumulus
tomb=rock-cut	rock-cut tomb
tomb=hypogeum	hypogeum - an underground tomb
tomb=war_grave	single war grave
tomb=mausoleum	mausoleum
tomb=columbarium	columbarium
tomb=cenotaph withdrawn, use historic=memorial or historic=monument and suitable subtags (e.g. memorial=cenotaph).	cenotaph
tomb=crypt	crypt
tomb=dolmen	dolmen
tomb=pyramid	pyramid
tomb=sarcophagus	sarcophagus
tomb=vault	vault

See also

• historic:civilization=* to tag the civilization who built the tomb
• historic=archaeological_site
• Proposed features/Relation:person (rejected) to add information about people buried in the tomb and to collect OSM features related to them.
• wikidata=* or wikipedia=* prefered for such information about people
• JOSM/Plugins/Tomb Plugin

Voting

Voting has ended. YES-Votes 12 NO-Votes 1 Abstentions: 6

The tag is approved with 92.3% yes votes, required 75%.

• I approve this proposal. --Dieterdreist (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I disagree using historic=* for tombs without any historic signifiance) Marc marc (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Would you mind elaborating on the why? Do you suggest to deprecate most of the "historic" tags for language reasons? I believe tags, although there should ideally be a connection to the tagged thing, are rather mnemonics than to be taken literally. They point in a direction, but the actual meaning is documented in the wiki and by usage on the map. The "historic" tag is not, since it was created, used only for objects of elevated historic significance. --Dieterdreist (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I don't find any definition of what we could or should consider as a tomb. There are many examples referencing Wikipedia but I am lost of what fits here as many of them are not present at my locality. The examples and pictures give me some clue but seem to cover a very large scope, where do we start where do we end ?--Bert Araali (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'd say any structure meant for containing one or more person's remains or indicating where they are contained is fair game. The fact that cenotaph is recommended by this proposal to be moved out of the scheme supports this, as cenotaphs are commemorations where the remains are lost or stored elsewhere. Arlo James Barnes (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. I agree with adding formal approval to this tagging scheme which has already been accepted by mappers (27K usages) as the tagging scheme for tombs. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. However, I wonder what an appropriate value for mass or family graves would be. Arlo James Barnes (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I have no trouble with using historic=* for old things without historic significance. But this proposal seems a bit underspecified - for example is tomb=pyramid supposed to be used on the entire pyramid or tomb chamber only? Also "wikidata=* or wikipedia=* prefered for such information about people" is clearly wrong, such tags can link article/entry about tomb itself only. --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I would add the tomb=pyramid tag to the whole pyramid. Inside, there could be several burial chambers. You could use a different tag for these chambers, and for the sarcophacoes inside the chambers (if any), etc. Regarding the tags wikipedia and wikidata, these always refer to the object with this tag, i.e. you would add the wikidata object of the tomb, and at wikidata you could (eventually) find information about the people in the tomb. Or you would prefix the "wikidata" tag in OSM when it relates to the wikidata item about a person buried there --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. I've already been using this for a while now on NRHP listed tombs. --Rassilon (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I like the proposal overall but I have some reservations about the suggested use of the "wikidata" tag, in my view it should *not* be used to link to the Wikidata item of the person buried there but it should link to the Wikidata item of the tomb itself. The tomb of Aulus Hirtius should link to Tomb of Aulus Hirtius (Q104787278) and not to Aulus Hirtius (Q354990). A person does not *have* a coordinate location while a tomb obviously does, and it would lead to lots of inconsistencies since reasonably the same logic could be applied to link the birth house / alma mater etc of a person with a wikidata tag of the person. I strongly suggest to change this and link like with like, eg tombs to tombs. PS: on top of that, there may be more than one person buried in a single tomb. --Hannes Röst (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

see my comment to Mateusz about wikidata. --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --Mashin (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Tell me how to tag Geumsusan Taeyang Gungjeon? -- CBRS (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

what about "tomb=mausoleum", would that not work? --Hannes Röst (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --Rskedgell (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 11:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Warum so viele Überschneidungen mit historic=archaeological_site ? Das bringt nur Mißverständnisse. Da gehört eine klare Abgrenzung hinein, zB. historic=tomb nur bei Gräbern konkreter Persönlichkeiten... --Lutz (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2021

der tag ist damals entstanden, weil ich die einzelnen Hügelgräber und unterirdischen Gräber einer etruskischen Nekropole gemappt habe, und dafür spezifische tags für die einzelnen Gräber haben wollte, man könnte aber auch mehrere sites ineinander verschachteln, was aber wenigstens dann evtl. komisch aussieht, wenn ein Einzelteil gar keinen spezifischen Namen hat, weil dann ist die site ja bereits eine site, weitere sites darin ohne Namen machen dann eher keinen Sinn. Man kann aber selbst wenn man die Begräbnisstätte als archaeological_site taggt, den spezifischen Typ mit tomb=* angeben. --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --AnakinNN (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Nick Sokornov (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Maraf (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Reino Baptista (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I like the proposal, but I think it needs some revision. As said before, wikidata="" for buried people is wrong. subject:wikidata and subject:wikipedia is commonly used for that. Also overlaps with historic should be revised and maybe better explained. So from my point of view, a revised proposal is necessary. --TheBlackMan (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. ...if there is a need of approval about keys already in use. Meanwhile the man_made=tomb tag has been documented as in use but has very low usage. I would move that in a proposal page. --sorcrosc (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)