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

Randy rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 2 21:02:37 GMT 2009


Anthony wrote:

>On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Randy 
><rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>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.
>
>I don't like the "usually", and I don't like the fact that this
>federal exclusive jurisdiction is something which can exist in
>non-military areas (such as federal prisons or federal parks) as well.
>  I'd rather see "boundary=federal enclave"
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_enclave) or something like that
>to represent this.
>
>You'd still likely want something=military in addition, but the
>jurisdictional issue should be solved once, not repeatedly for each
>different situation.

I'm OK with that. I assume you mean the something=military is a property 
of the boundary way, as well. It overtly fits the description of "federal 
enclave" in wikipedia. What would you suggest as a name for the key, 
"something", or is there "something" out there already? If not, possibly 
this needs to be thrown to region.us. Wikipedia defines federal enclave in 
US terms.

I thought about a more general approach with boundary=enclave, 
admin_level=2, but, there is a relation role=enclave, that doesn't really 
fit the federal enclave situation, since the federal enclave is actually 
within the federal boundary, but excludes lower levels of administration. 
The current enclave role might fit a US base hosted in a foreign country, 
though.

-- 
Randy





More information about the Tagging mailing list