[Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

[Greg Troxel]

Jean-Marc Liotier <jm at liotier.org> writes:

> On 3/23/19 6:04 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> I find the implicit rules really problematic, as we don't have a
>> machine-readable repository of them that can be used to processs tags as
>> they are to the full logical set of what they mean.
>
> So, should the amenity=place_of_worship complex have landuse=religious
> too ? I wouldn't mind - if a consensus here believes so.

My view is perhaps a bit extreme, which is that ideally everything that
has human use would have some landuse tag.  I prefer explicit
representation of landuse and landcover both, with a clear logical
separation between these two concepts.

So in a situation where there is a church building and parking lot
(carpark in en_GB) on a parcel (area of land under one ownership), I
would put landuse=religious.  Same for something larger with more
buildings.

And if there were two unrelated churches on two adjacent lots, I would
ideally put only one landuse=religious object (which might get into
relations), since landuse is not about per parcel or per object, but
about groups of them.