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

Pieren pieren3 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 30 09:29:53 BST 2011


On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Peter Gervai <grinapo at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I think there are so many reasons why this tag is a bad idea
>
> If court decides its not illegal then great (if we know about it), we
> remove the tag, even can reference the decision, and we made the map
> better. If it was illegal then, hey, we were right.
>

In general, I'm also against tagging what is not physical and immediatly
"verifiable" attributes. But hey, the idea of indicating the legal status is
not worst than many other tags already widely used. And it is verifiable,
not easy but it is (not less, for instance, than the power lines voltage).
My concern is more about the tag name itself. We fall in the same trap as
the disused=yes. It has the advantage that you don't have to set any special
rules for renderers but you also take the risk that many data consumers will
ignore this status and consider the object as 'usable'. We have this problem
with disused railways or roads. We will have it for illegal dumps, illegal
constructions or illegal business.

Pieren
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20110330/130c7a90/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list