[Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

Tom Pfeifer t.pfeifer at computer.org
Fri Nov 7 10:02:31 UTC 2014


Yes I agree we should not include them, for two main reasons:

- landuse should not describe ownership, by any means. Ownership
   is not publicly verifiable, they remain closed source. Even
   when land registries (fr/cadastre de/Kataster) now publish
   property boundaries, the owner remains closed. No other
   landuse tag describes ownership, and this proposal should not
   establish a precedent.

- transportation is sufficiently covered by existing landuse tags,
   there is landuse=railway and aeroway=aerodrome for the major
   infrastructure. Their headquarters can stand on landuse=commercial
   as there is usually some usage fee involved. Who operates them
   should be described in the operator= tag.

tom

phil at trigpoint.me.uk wrote on 2014-11-07 10:04:
> On Fri Nov 07 2014 07:30:30 GMT+0000 (GMT), Colin Smale wrote:
>>
>>
>> I would not expect the landuse value of the municipal bus company's HQ
>> to change if the bus company was privatised... Only the ownership will
>> have changed, nothing else. Actually, as the buildings are probably
>> leased from a property company anyway, even that would stay the same.
>> Just the shareholders of the company would different.
>>
>> So I would suggest "civic" or "government" or whatever should only be
>> applied where the activities taking place there are actually "civic
>> administration" - council meetings, committees, births/deaths/marriages,
>> highways,..... i.e. the core business of a local authority as defined in
>> law. Sidelines like running transport companies or sports grounds are
>> not "landuse=civic" to my mind.
>
> +1
>
> I totally agree Colin, it would be equally ridiculous to tag schools or parks as civic.
>
> Phil (trigpoint )
>



More information about the Tagging mailing list