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

Peter Gervai grinapo at gmail.com
Tue Mar 29 12:33:45 BST 2011


On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:18, Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/29/2011 6:04 AM, Peter Gervai wrote:

>>> I would like to propose a few additions:
>>> landuse=residential illegal=yes: residence of an illegal immigrant
>>
>> No, it would be houses built on someone else's land, or on area where
>> it wasn't allowed.
>
> So what happens in the case of a dispute, where two entities claim the same
> land?

Who disputes? OSM mappers, or the people involved?

In the first case I'd say the mappers will try to agree on something
by their preferred ways (I could conjure up methods like justifying a
statement with proof but it's really beyond the interest of this tag).

In the second case I couldn't care less. When they have decided we
update the map. :-)

>>> landuse=farm illegal=yes: marijuana farm in countries where such is
>>> illegal
>>
>> No, it would be a farm on a land where it wasn't allowed, some
>> examples would be illegally cutting trees in the middle of a forest,
>> or squatting a field somewhere. What you wanted to use is some
>> non-existing subtagging on farmland, like "product=marijuana". Still,
>> we usually do not keep databases on products and their attributes.
>
> So if the land is zoned for a certain type of crop, but a mapper knows the
> farmer also grows something else that's not allowed by the zoning, would
> that be illegal=yes? Why would we deal with regulations applying to specific
> pieces of land but not laws applying to all land?

No. As far as I observe some crops tagged by their type (product) but
mostly it isn't, and nobody seem to care about that in such depths.
And what you say is the opposite what I believe I wanted to say, which
is that we can deal with problems of a whole object (land) but we
shouldn't care about specific parts of it, unless they're separate
objects (which I guess never being the case, at least I've never
observed a crop created by a dozen polygons describing corn, wheat and
marijuana separately :-)).

>>> amenity=bank illegal=yes: headquarters or branch of a bank that has
>>> engaged in illegal practices
>>
>> No, it would be a house which looks like a bank, and tries to hoax
>> people to give their money but they are not. It attributes the object
>> (house, area) not the business. I like this example because this is a
>> real-life object which "looks like a bank but isn't", which clearly a
>> pretty useful information for someone on the location.
>
> religion=scientology illegal=yes for a scientology "church"?

Does it look like a Roman Catholic church? Does it try to look like one?

I believe it's just wishful thinking that it'd be illegal, but even
then it's again not about the object but its proprietor.


Think rather about the tag "access=no", where we attribute an existing
object as non-accessible. There are cases where a visible path/trail
goes which would be tagged "access=no" (which could convey, if not
completely equally, the "illegal=yes" case) to show that while there
is no barrier or sign around it's still an illegal path and a lawful
good adventurer shouldn't go there. :-) There are illegal paths in
nature preserve areas where you must not go, for example. There are
bike tracks in parts of the forest where bikes are not allowed, and
generally you can tag all the paths like "bycicle=no" but what about
the clearing with the bike tyre marks and jumping pads? Some people
are senseful enough to honour such information and don't go there with
bikes...

-- 
 byte-byte,
    grin



More information about the Tagging mailing list