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

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Mon Nov 2 22:07:56 GMT 2009

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Randy <rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>>On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Randy
>><rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>  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.

Only when the "military" area is exactly equal to the "federal
enclave" area.  This may or may not be the case depending on the
definition of the military area and the specifics of the situation.

> 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?

Depends on what you want to describe.  If it's the ownership,
ownership.  If it's who is allowed to access the land, access.  If
it's what the land is used for (and not who it's used by), landuse.

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Randy <rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.

I would guess it's very much a US-specific thing, since we're one of
the few (only?) places with that whole dual-sovereignty thing going

Admin_level=3?  Admin_level=5?  Admin_level=4?  I don't know.  What's
used for the District of Columbia?  This is similar,
jurisdiction-wise, though it differs in the fact that the land wasn't
actually ceded from the state.  (Answer is admin_level=4, but in that
case it's *also* a state border, because the state actually ceded the

As for the use of the term "enclave", it's a bit too confusing trying
to wrap my head around how to apply "enclave" in the face of
dual-sovereignty.  I certainly wouldn't use that term by itself - it'd
be far too ambiguous.  "Federal enclave" seems to be well defined and
unambiguous.  But it's long and has a space in it.

Honestly, I don't really like the whole admin_level thing in the first
place.  It doesn't fit the reality of the situation - Florida is not
an administrative level of the United States, just as France is not an
administrative level of the EU.  So I'll let others battle that one

More information about the Tagging mailing list