Loss of detail with memorial=war_memorial alone?

Hi everyone,

I noticed a problem with the tag memorial=war_memorial.

A building, monument, statue or other edifice to celebrate a war or victory, or (predominating in modern times) to commemorate those who died or were injured in a war.

If you want to add it to a building there’s no problem, but what if you want to add it to a plaque or statue that are also values of memorial=*?

I noticed is a problem for some user, someone tagged an element as

memorial=statue + memorial_1=war_memorial

another one used

memorial=statue + war_memorial=yes

another tagging I could think of is

memorial=war_memorial + war_memorial=statue

what do you think about it?


See Talk:Key:memorial - OpenStreetMap Wikiwar_memorial=yes is mentioned. I prefer using something in the lines of subject=, and memorial:conflict= (=yes might be valid since it’s strangely not in freeform text) directly.

memorial_1= is definitely not the solution. Duplicating memorial= in war_memorial= isn’t convenient.


Oh, I missed that discussion, thanks for linking it.
I’m also prone to this solution:

Personally I would prefer deprecating memorial=war_memorial, tag its form there and have a new war_memorial=yes Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

We could start with mentioning it in the Wiki at least as a way to not loose information when the memorial can be described with another value such a statue, plaque, stone ecc.


yes, that could be a good start (if it is used at least a bit) - at least as an idea how to tag both form and war memorial function

Done here using the Wiki talk page and this thread as ref.


Asking here, rather than starting a new thread.

When does a historic=tank (cannon / aircraft / vehicle etc) also become a War Memorial?

If they are ex-military item, are they always assumed to be a Memorial?

Or would it be depend on where it’s located e.g. outside a Returned Servicemen’s club, in a local Memorial Park, military establishment etc? e.g

no, for example many military bases have some old equipment standing as attraction/promotion, without making it memorial at all

not really a memorial (unless they put some extra plaques since I last looked at it)

when it has some indicator that it is in remembrance of war/killed soldiers/etc?

Compare museum with multiple old aircraft including military ones, random old plane as decoration of military base, old abandoned tank rusting in a ditch and tank with plaque “In remembrance of fallen in war XYZ”.


And for specific examples: first and third looks like component of war memorial, not a standalone one. Though maybe in the first case name of park can be sort of plaque for the tank making it a war memorial?

All three are borderline anyway and going into either direction will not change much.

There are other cases which are more clear (random abandoned tanks rusting in roadsides of Afghanistan or Ukraine are not war memorials, tagging all military planes of aviation museum as war memorial is unlikely to be a correct action)

Yep, definitely agree with those ones!

In Australia, Anzac Park is the War Memorial in most towns, so yes, if they’re in there, I’d also say that they’d be war memorials.