[Tagging] access agricultural, WAS Re: Reviving the conditions debate

Flaimo flaimo at gmail.com
Fri Jun 15 08:32:11 BST 2012


> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:45:28 +0200
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>        <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: [Tagging] access agricultural, WAS Re:  Reviving the
>        conditions debate
> Message-ID:
>        <CABPTjTC42=+EM2ag9Qax7bTNM60EauJtak3Bfx-Aa9_cAhjvWQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> How can we resolve this? It seems obvious that we need either 2 tags
> for agricultural (according to the legislation, either a vehicle class
> or a use case is intended), or we accept that the same tag has
> different meanings in different legislations/countries. Personally I
> am in favour of an additional tag. We could also have 2 new tags:
> "agricultural_use" and "agricultural_vehicle" to make it unambiguous,
> and to deprecate the unclear agricultural.

very easy. use the 1.5 proposal :-). for germany you could use
access:motorized&&agricultural=yes. in developing countries, where
motor vehicles are not common for most people, you could just use the
role: access:agricultural=yes. That is the whole purpose of splitting
user roles and transportation modes. and you don't run into the risk
of a "germanification" of openstreetmap by always taking the german
law or other western country laws as the basis for all tagging rules
and leave out underrepresented countries.

flaimo



More information about the Tagging mailing list