<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
On 14.04.2023 00:30, stevea wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:E16155DC-8F7D-4F26-AEFC-E95396B0D915@softworkers.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
A search might be able to discern "in which" jurisdiction(s) a
road is found, much like a geocoder works with a minimal amount of
data "scattered around" (geographically) enough to determine
"close enough to a node to be associated with it" (as a place, for
example), or "inside the polygon that denotes a particular
municipality." Those are working strategies for geocoders and a
minimal amount of tagging data to "feed" them, and similarly, we
don't want more than the minimal, necessary amount of data about
road ownership, too. <i>Where</i> it is has already been encoded
merely by the fact of its geographic coordinates of where it is in
the map. We don't need to redundantly add these. Something like
"private, municipal, county, regional, state, national / federal"
or whatever as values to a well-chosen tag, yes. That can work. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
It seems that ownership=* does this and has the necessary values
already in place, so I think that will be the preferred tag for
further work.<br>
<br>
Thanks for all the input.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:E16155DC-8F7D-4F26-AEFC-E95396B0D915@softworkers.com">
<div>Finally in this discussion, it almost is never a good idea to
throw in the word "type" (as in the Subject) when it isn't
necessary: it can only add to more confusion. I'll know what
is meant (and so will others) as "Tagging ownership of a road"
is discussed, without adding the word "type" to the dialog.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The point was to differentiate between tagging the specific owner of
a road and tagging the type of entity that the owner is. "Tagging
ownership" could refer to both.<br>
<br>
As a result of this discussion, I see that this is the difference
between the tags owner and ownership, so I guess that is just the
convention OSM chose at some point to differentiate. It certainly
doesn't follow linguistically. Without already knowing this is the
convention, using "type of" to differentiate between specific owner
and type of owner/ownership seems entirely legitimate to me.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Jens<br>
</body>
</html>