[Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

Graeme Fitzpatrick graemefitz1 at gmail.com
Fri Dec 25 21:37:22 UTC 2020


Also from talk discussion:

Earlier, I did mention this, but didn't get any response:

"with regard to =barracks (& some of the other military= tags), I'm finding
myself partially in agreement with the "Don't map anything military"
theory! I still think it's fine to map the area & say that this is Edwards
Air Force Base, but I'm wondering if we really need to, or should, map
interior details to say that this building is the Officers Mess, these are
the Enlisted Quarters & this is the Armoury? (using the definition of the
place where weapons & ammunition are stored)"

What are all your thoughts? Should we map with as much detail as possible
(or at least as much as a civilian can determine from outside the Base!),
or just have the area of a Base filled with anonymous buildings, except for
those few that may have public access eg museums, memorials etc?
Thanks

Graeme


On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 at 07:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Yes, if you can identify what the purpose of that building is, then use a
> specific tag.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201226/8ebf96e1/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list