[Tagging] [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(boundary=military)

Randy rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 2 17:32:25 GMT 2009


Anthony wrote:

>2009/10/13 Martin Koppenhoefer 
><dieterdreist at gmail.com>:
>>IMHO landuse=military is already what you want to express with
>>boundary=military.
>
>Then all the landuse=military tags can be changed, and
>landuse=military can be deprecated.
>
>On the other hand, ownership=military and/or access=military makes
>more sense than boundary=military.

Just catching up on some posts, and since I'll eventually be dealing with 
this issue, I thought I'd throw in a comment.

To me, in the US, boundary=military makes sense from the perspective that 
a military base is usually under federal jurisdiction, rather than the 
state and local jurisdiction of the political/administrative boundaries 
around it. For example, local/state law enforcement usually only have 
access by permission. My preference would be something like the following 
for a case which I'll probably end up mapping when I can get around to it:

boundary=militiary
ownership=US Department of Defense (optional)
administration=US Navy
name=Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth
old_name=Carswell Air Force Base

Granted there will be boundary overlays or intersections, in some cases, 
since, for example, military installations can span county lines, but so 
can cities. It does allow for multiple interior land-uses, such as golf 
courses, residential, etc.

This particular situation gets more complex, since there is a large leased 
aircraft manufacturing facility within the boundary. And, some other 
countries would have some interesting situations to tag where they are 
hosting foreign (usually US) military facilities. I'm not sure exactly how 
all the juristicional issues break out there.

-- 
Randy





More information about the Tagging mailing list