[Tagging] landuse: illegal and illegal:yes/no

[Dave F.]

On 04/04/2011 15:10, Peter Gervai wrote:
>
> What if I'd replace the word "illegal" with "unauthorised" or "unofficial"?
>
> (Still, the point is to provide useful data. I took some time to check
> around the OSM policies and FAQ and stuff and it says that OSM is a
> database about geographical facts [I do not avoid this word and I
> consider my/our judgement a good base for factuality]

But it's not /geographical/!


>   for many known
> and any possible yet unknown purposes in which it would turned to be
> useful.)
>
>
>> There may be examples in use, but that doesn't make it right. It's not a
>> valid reason to add another to them.
> Your argument was that OSM does not possess such tags at all,

Really?! Where did I say that?



>   so I
> should drop the subject. Now you say that it does indeed contain such
> tags but I don't have the right to do the same anyway so I should drop
> the subject. :-)

Two wrongs don't make a right!

Saying it's OK to add bad data because there's already bad data is a 
really bad idea.

> No, I do not have any rights to any discussion, whatsoever, as neither
> have anyone, and obviously I have the right to use whatever tag I
> please. Discussions are usually to help people to make informed
> decisions. Unfortunately your input not really added much new
> information to the subject, apart from repeating others and commanding
> me. No offense.

Hmm...

It seems you're the one that been repeating oneself, even after many 
people believe it's a bad idea.
This hasn't been much of a discussion because it appears to don't 
listen/read very well.

> I tend to agree though that rendering-wise this tag doesn't work, and
> I'm not sure where to proceed; creating separate
> amenity=illegal_waste_dump and such doesn't feels nice.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20110404/e7d3c514/attachment-0001.html>