It would seem that such famous graves can be added on Maps. But there are cemeteries where each grave belongs to a famous person. And there are thousands of them in the same cemetery. Here is a typical example - Novodevichy cemetery in Moscow. This is the most famous cemeteries in the country, the most famous people in the country and even the world are buried here. Artists, poets, composers, musicians, politicians are buried here. Here are the graves of Anton Chekhov, Nikolai Gogol, Konstantin Stanislavski, Alfred Schnittke, Dmitri Shostakovich, Sviatoslav Richter, and thousands of other famous people. Tourists from all over the world come here in huge groups. Hundreds of excursions are held here daily.
And of course, many users are trying to publish the graves of their idols on the Maps. I think this is unacceptable, for several reasons:
The grave, even of a famous person, is a very private place;
Each person thinking the grave of his idol or a loved one is important. So we need to map all the graves, but it’s impossible.
Here is my opinion and suggestion:
A cemetery surely should be on the Maps. Photos took at this cemetery can be attached to this object.
The grave of a famous person can be mapped, only if it is not in the cemetery, but is a stand-alone separate object.
What do you thinking about?
I’m not a big fan of graveyard tourists, they often have little or no respect. I know that a famous grave from a Melbourne cemetery was moved to avoid distress to families as people stomped all over the graves of their loved ones @SergeySud
I consider the very first question we need to answer is: Is it a privacy invasion it list the grave of a specific person in Maps?
If it is unconditionally, then we cannot list any grave in any form in Maps. (Tourist attractions, Historical Sites included)
Or, we can say when a grave is if certain age, say 50 years, then we can Maps it.
When it is older than 100 years, we can Maps it as historic sites.
Or when it is older than 25 years and popular, then we can Map it ad a tourist attraction.
The problem here, for tourist attractions and historic sites, to me, there are no clear cut requirements. Thus Mapping POIs using these two categories are often considered as abuses to the system. So not good to go down these two routes.
So unless the privacy question is answered, I do not see it appropriate for individual grave be listed in Maps.
As stated already by @PaulPavlinovich ; graves are not to be mapped. Using Tourist Attraction and Historical Landmark are not appropriate ways to bypass that rule. Those two categories have specific meaning and should not be used outside of that meaning; if graves were to be mapped there would be a corresponding category.
As with many rules, there can be exceptions. There are a very few graves that are appropriate on the map; an example would be Napoleon’s Tomb. That does not then mean any old grave belongs on the map, rather that is just a rare exception. Likely all such appropriate exceptions are already mapped; no one should be adding more as they are so rare that it would be up to Google to add any additional ones.
The first one: “A couple of minutes ago, I created a new topic. Who sees it? Almost no one I guess. It’s just buried under a deluge of other posts. Posts don’t really surface unless you actively share the link to others.”
You are right, it is not Connect, it is human nature and it is one of the reason why advertisement and marketing are working. I have learned from my own experience that if you write a ten page memo with an executive summary, 99% of the people that should read the memo will read only the executive summary. If you write a post with hyperlinks, less than 1% of the readers will click on the links. In real life people give kudos to a post without reading it. I am sure you know that and I find clever the way you linked this topic to the previous one. I am eager to read your conclusion about the rate of click from the previous message.
The second subject “Graveyard mapping” is more serious. I agree with your suggestions:
A cemetery surely should be on the Maps. Photos took at this cemetery can be attached to this object. By the way I found this photo of Local Guides taking pictures of National cimetery in San Francisco
The grave of a famous person can be mapped, only if it is not in the cemetery, but is a stand-alone separate object. I think that even if the person is not famous, it make sense to add memories of lost people on the Maps, especially if it makes people aware of a dangerous location. I would give this example: Last year, in Berck two old people were drawned in dangerous part of the beach, it is a place where a lot of people have died because of the dangerous tide. During a walk on the beach, I discovered a fragile souvenir made by the family of one of the dead.
There is a huge problem with this. In some countries, including Russia, in the place of death in a car accident, the relatives of the deceased put a memorial sign. In Russia, usually wooden or metal cross mounted. Here’s how it looks like https://goo.gl/maps/2dwv5W6RqNVkqPbt8. Look closely, you will see a funeral wreath on a cross. If we will follow your logic, the roadsides on Maps will turn into a graveyard of such memorable signs.
Also, people often arrange unauthorized improvised memorials at the site of crashes, terrorist acts, murders. Here’s how it looks like https://goo.gl/maps/XikrFYWndD3nP2nh9. This is the place of murder of a politician. Some people made an altar of worship from this place. And some users for a long time repeatedly created an object on Maps for this place. As far as I know, is ended by blocking all Local Guides accounts who did it.
There is an iron rule - the places of events, past or future, are not allowed to indicate on Maps. This surely includes locations of catastrophes, air crashes, murders, road accidents, and so on.
It is possible to add such a place of an accident if a real, legally erected monument is installed at this place.
