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

[Flaimo]

> 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