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

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Mar 29 13:09:51 BST 2011


2011/3/29 Peter Gervai <grinapo at gmail.com>:
> 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 :-)).


In fact they should. I mean not necessarily for different plants, but
for different adjacent crops. Mapping single crops is enhancing the
map with detail about the topological layout of an area. Using one big
landuse=farmland, maybe even as multipolygon subtracting settlements
and forest, is not a desirable approach (these relations tend to
become more and more complex with every detail added, usually there is
no need for multipolygon relations when mapping farmland,  but there
is lots of them.)

To illustrate what I am talking about, this is an example for a big
farmland which is IMHO not desirable:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.7051&lon=11.7112&zoom=13&layers=M

This is an example for single mapped crops:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.0096&lon=12.10789&zoom=15&layers=M


>> 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.


+1, AFAIK they are nowhere "illegal", they are simply no recognized as
a church but as ordinary business. In some countries like Germany and
France they are also observed by the secret service and the government
takes an active position against them (they declare them as
dangerous).

Cheers,
Martin



More information about the Tagging mailing list