Talk:Tag:cemetery=grave

relation type=person used to described who is buried in a grave ?

The wiki suggest to use buried:wikidata=* to link to the person buried. Examples:

• n5932931395 John Bonham (Q485490)
• n6858162931 Emil Theodor Kocher (Q115478)
• w365519518 Milutin Baltić (Q12636988);Franjo Knebl (Q988613);Milan Kuprešanin (Q125654);…

Curently, there is 108 grave with buried:wikidata=* in OSM.

But the usage seem to use the relation type=person. Currently 3425 persons in OSM.

See:

• Proposed features/Relation:person (rewrite)
• Pl:Key:tomb

--Pyrog (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

historic=tomb mandatory?

@Władysław Komorek: in your change you marked historic=tomb as mandatory in combination with this tag. I don't see anywhere a discussion/proposal with a consensus on the decision to make this combination mandatory, actually in the "See also" section of this page includes an explanation of the difference between the two tags that implies their combination is not mandatory:

 historic=tomb - for historical tombs, e.g., barrows, pyramids, rock tombs. While a grave is a place dug into the ground for the burial of a corpse, a tomb is a built structure

Am I missing the proposal? If not, we should revert this change and if you think the combination should be mandatory you should open a proposal or at least a discussion here. --Danysan (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Suspecting it's a misunderstanding of "useful combination", which not only is optional, but also landuse=cemetery should be a larger area. I'm correcting them.
—— Kovposch (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

<name> as the name of the person in the grave is incorrect

In the "How to map" section there is an incorrect use of the name=* tag

See [When_not_to_use]

Władysław Komorek (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree on that. I updated the content to reflect both the current usage and the rules about names. If hope my wording is clear, if anyone has a better wording go ahead.

On this topic, I would like to cite here the discussion happening under changesets 160739414 and 160740534. Personally I agree on the idea of moving the buried person's name out of name=*, however I believe that doing it completely deleting this information from the grave element and moving it in another relations using a scheme from a completely abandoned proposal and not commonly used is detrimental, especially while we have other good alternatives very commonly used and documented like subject=*, subject:wikidata=* and buried:wikidata=*. I believe that a change with such a disruptive impact on existing data should be at least discussed here on the Wiki.

--Danysan (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It is common practice to put name of the died person written on the tombstone into the `name` tag

The name of the grave is what is written on it. If the tombstone say "Władziu Kmorek" and then there are dates or other details, then people gonna use the first name (usually the only name) on the tombstone as its name. As by naming rules, there may be long name, short name but the value of `name` tag should definetly be the written name, usually of the burried person. For me it is important to map graves that are here to stay and not goned when the spot is not paid anymore. Those graves usually older than a century are for just one deaceased person. Those may be of historical or simply on an old family graveyard owned now by thee state and not the family itself.

Now, the only reason that Władysław Komorek (talk) is removing those names of the graves, is that he wants em only in his relations. This is wrong, because those relations are not even officially specified and are considered a proposition in my opinion. Those relations are a good way to save information about multiple burried people in that grave, but this can't lead to the grave `name` to be deleted.

Nowadays it is very common in Poland for sure that there are multiple people in one grave and those may be called family graves, eg `name=Komorek family` but otherwise poeple gonna name a grave by the most important burried persons name there. People name things as they like and this is not against naming rules, as Władysław Komorek claims. He is misleading and instead of contributing to the english wiki page, he expanded only the polish Wiki version and takes it for granted.

Danysan, so please write the `name` guideline as it used to be and the english wiki can possibly be expanded from polish wiki, but if there are objections, it has to be talked through first. Finally i will edit polish Wiki to match english wiki, because right now those are two different conflicting specifications that directly affect people mapping with iD and trying to find out proper way to map stuff.

--Yog_Sot (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The name of the grave is what is written on it.

As by naming rules, there may be long name, short name but the value of `name` tag should definetly be the written name, usually of the burried person.

I don't agree with that. To map what's written on objects we use inscription=*. We use what's written on the object in name=* as well only if it matches the object's own name. Anyway, I brought back the tagging guide for name=* to the original wording an left this as an unresolved matter in the bottom "see also" section.

--Danysan (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

What i'm saying is that ppl describe a grave by saying "i'm going to see Heinrich grave" which by definition is the short_name=*, but in fact the normal name for the grave is Heinrich von Treskow grave But because we are mapping a grave, it has an icon of a grave on the map we skip grave from its name. That's why i'm saying a grave name we should fill is usually the name of the burried deceased.

Lets say it's a war memorial and the most important marked name is say "General Heinrich", but also some names of his men are present around as well, the name to tag might be "General Heinrich company". So if the grave memories multiple people, naming gets complicated (usually i would not agree to put multiple names into a grave name), but in case of a single deceased it's kinda obvious to me.

Now, how do you think we should proceed from here, so we can have other mappers to voice their opinion here?

here is example of a tombstone and the page with more as an example what i'm specifically saying about one grave per one deceased and never multiple. Military rank and other details going into inscription=* and the dates could go into born=* and died=* tags, which are not specified formally on english wiki.

--Yog_Sot (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

OSM should reflect the real world situation, if multiple people are buried in a single grave we should map only one grave and the tagging schema should allow us to tag multiple buried people in it (while mapping I have encountered multiple cases like this, for example 1, 2, 3, etc..).

Your reasoning on how to choose the name=* holds and I agree that the grave deserves a name=* if it adds something to what is already mapped through burial tags (ex. subject=A Foo;B Foo;C Foo + name="Foo family"), but I'm not sure it deserves it if the name=* would not add anything (ex. if it has only one person buried). Anyway, I guess having the extra info in name=* doesn't hurt anyone so I guess it's ok.

Surely having other mappers voice their opinion would be nice.

--Danysan (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Translation out of sync?

What's the point of the Template:Translation out of sync that was just added? This page is not a translation of the polish article. If anything, english is the language most of the OSM mappers know so this should be the reference page that reflects the global best practices. If there are mapping style variations agreed by the local community of a language/country for their region it makes sense to document it (as has already been done here in the section Tags popular in Poland) but that doesn't mean the main article becomes a translation of the local article. If you believe that in that page there is a variation that should be suggested as a global best practice you should discuss it here in the talk page or in a Proposal. --Danysan (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Władysław Komorek likely added that note, because he realised that i have added it on the Polish translation page and he wanted to return the favour? ;]

So yeah, like we know, he's been working on it creating new specifications all on his own without coordination with international community and he likely wants it to stay that way and won't actually translate or bring his ideas to the community, coz he likely thinks that to be a waste of time? Well, he tried once, got rejected in some ideas, so he stopped doing it and instead of coming up with proposals, he is modifying the polish wiki all on his own and when i wanted to fix it a little bit, he reverted it and called "spam" ;]

Well, just pay a visit to the page with a browser translation polish->english and you gotta see what's there so maybe we could try to come up with a thread on forums to see which of those are good ideas.

--Yog_Sot (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The text on the Polish page is the original text, which is included in the page history, and in the English version it is not fully translated.

Please do not mislead the OSM community.

--Władysław Komorek (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)