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

John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Tue Oct 13 12:25:00 BST 2009

2009/10/13 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:
> 2009/10/13 John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>:
>>> This does not sound completely strange, but still incorporates some
>>> problems (all currently tagged landuse=military will get deprecated).
>>> I don't see the big problem here, as you can
>>> 1. draw a landuse=military around the whole area (and probably
>>> military=barracks)
>>> 2. draw a landuse=forest around the actual forest
>>> 3. draw a landuse=school around the actual school (or building=school
>>> for the school-building)
>>> 4. draw and tag the parking_lot where it is.
>>> IMHO landuse=military is already what you want to express with
>>> boundary=military. The boundary-object can be tagged as
>>> barrier=fence/wall/whatever with entrances, gates, videosurveillance
>>> etc.
>> What about using a relation to add secondary land uses?
> why? If the landuse is inside another landuse, and not excluded by
> multipolygon, why use a relation (it is more complicated and breaks
> easier). What would be the benefit? There is a proposal to do so
> anyway (site-relation).

I thought the problem was due to a polygon not being able to be used
for 2 different landuse=* tags...

More information about the Tagging mailing list