A register can tell you who is buried in a cemetery. A map can show where graves are located. The challenge is connecting the two in a way that remains understandable, reviewable and maintainable long after the information was collected.

The Skylens cemetery mapping tool brings place and record into one workspace: orthophoto imagery, a 3D view, grave outlines and individual record cards. A grave can be treated as a spatial entity with an identifier, location and reviewable information, rather than only a table row or a shape in an image.

This article is based on two screenshots supplied and approved for publication. They demonstrate the interface and the data displayed at capture time. The screenshots retain the original Hebrew interface.

In this article

Map and record on one screen

The full interface screenshot shows the map, search results and an open grave record. The card includes a persistent identifier, a proposed location, section, row and grave fields, review status and deceased-person records.

Alongside the name are an information source, a name-reviewed indicator and notes. These distinctions matter: a name transcribed from a headstone, a proposed map position and an official grave number are different kinds of information.

Instead of losing context while moving between a name register and a site map, the record can be examined beside the visual material associated with it. The screenshot also shows a control for adding another deceased-person record to the same grave; this does not by itself confirm how every cemetery structures its register.

From orthophoto to 3D context

The orthophoto view provides an overhead picture of graves and paths. The second screenshot shows outlines around graves, a distinct selected grave and a layer legend.

This view supports orientation and examination of neighbouring records. The combined orthophoto and 3D display adds context about the headstone’s shape and surroundings, supporting visual review of the selected item.

3D does not replace the record. It adds context. Likewise, an outline does not establish that the boundary is correct or the record association is complete. Source quality, outline alignment and record details need to be checked against the managing organization’s information.

A displayed scale bar is not, by itself, a statement of measurement accuracy. Accuracy must be established from mapping data, control and the intended use of the project.

Search that starts with a name and continues to a place

The screenshot includes a search field, a filter for records containing names and a results table. The table distinguishes name, official location, proposed location, identification type and review status.

Connecting a result to the selected grave supports two questions together: is this the intended record, and is it associated with the correct place?

Missing data should remain visible. A field marked as not yet entered identifies work still required. The item count in the screenshot belongs to that workspace; it does not demonstrate that the whole cemetery has been mapped or every name verified.

A proposed location is not an official location

A key interface distinction is between a proposed spatial address and official registration fields. Mapping may help organize graves into rows or identify an image feature.

For each record, a useful information structure includes:

  • Persistent identifier: tracking the same entity as its details change.
  • Proposed location: a mapping or organizational result that may still need review.
  • Official location: information from the authorized source, where available and checked.
  • Information source: such as headstone transcription or registration documents, kept distinct.
  • Review status and notes: what has been examined and what remains unresolved.

A verified label describes a status stored in the system. Its organizational meaning depends on who may verify, which sources they use and how the review is documented. This article does not independently revalidate the records shown.

A review-led workflow

A proposed cemetery mapping workflow should not begin by marking every grave as verified. It starts by separating observation, association and review:

  1. Prepare source material: spatial documentation and existing registers, with permission to use them and explicit quality limitations.
  2. Organize mapped entities: outline graves and associate identifiers while keeping unclear or missing areas explicit.
  3. Associate information: add names and registration details with their sources. Do not guess unreadable inscriptions.
  4. Check correspondence: compare the place, headstone and record. Conflicting sources remain under review rather than silently overwriting one another.
  5. Update status responsibly: assign review ownership and distinguish proposed information from approved data.
  6. Plan delivery and maintenance: define permissions, delivery formats and backups. Import, export and backup controls are visible, but supported formats and interoperability require separate testing.

This is a recommended process, not a claim that every step is automated in the tool.

Who can benefit from this connection?

  • Cemetery management: examining discrepancies between mapped observations and existing registers.
  • Mapping and records teams: bringing associations, sources and review status together.
  • Maintenance teams: referring to a specific place within recognizable visual context, subject to available data.
  • Information and service teams: building an organized basis for answering location questions after records have been reviewed.

An internal working map is not automatically a public portal. Opening information to families or the public is possible, alongside on-site navigation and integration with organizational systems.

Respectful handling of sensitive information

Cemetery documentation is more than a collection of objects. Names, inscriptions and images require careful decisions about access, purpose and public visibility.

The two screenshots were published with approval supplied by the system owner, without altering the displayed details. Each new project should define with the managing organization which material is internal and which is authorized for publication. This example does not authorize publication of other datasets.

Frequently asked questions

Does the tool automatically recognize names on headstones?

The screenshots show names, source information and review status, but do not demonstrate automatic recognition. This article makes no claim of validated OCR or AI identification.

Is a map outline the official grave boundary?

Not necessarily. It is a spatial outline to check against source material and relevant records, not certification of an official boundary or measurement accuracy.

Can missing information be distinguished from reviewed data?

The illustrated interface includes unfilled fields and review statuses. Their operational meaning should be defined in the managing organization’s workflow.

Is the tool connected to the cemetery’s official register?

The screenshots do not verify such a connection. Data formats, permissions and compatibility with the target system require separate assessment.

From a map to information that can be reviewed

The value of 3D GIS cemetery mapping is not only an impressive view. It is the connection between the physical place and its record, with information sources, gaps and review status kept visible.

Book a 30-minute demo — explore the mapping material, record structure and review process appropriate for your cemetery.