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

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Thu Mar 10 12:53:21 GMT 2011

2011/3/10 Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com>:
> Thanks. Maybe a word like "disputed" could be used? I'm very wary of
> "illegal" because it's very black and white, and it could be quite
> hard to verify the exact legal status. The locals might insist it's
> legitimate.
> Perhaps an even more indirect way could be "owner=unknown" or
> something.

no, I am totally against this because if you know that a certain place
is public terrain, you would do the opposite of what you want: instead
of declaring that that fence is illegal you would somehow concede that
it might still be OK that it is there. "owner=unknown" is pointless
IMHO, as there will always be an owner for a piece of land, and if he
is unknown you can omit the tag and have the same information.

> It would depend a bit on the motivations of the mapper.
> From my perspective, a fence is a fence - it makes no difference who
> owns it. But obviously the OP has a use case where it matters.

+1. I don't agree with all aspects of this proposal, but I wanted to
say that some of the proposed tags have their application use case.


More information about the Tagging mailing list