[Tagging] Removing landuse=military from military=barracks

[Warin]

On 13/4/21 6:43 pm, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
>
> On 13/04/2021 05:52, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> As part of the military=bases proposal, military=barracks were 
>> correctly re-defined as the buildings where military personnel live & 
>> sleep only, rather than being used to describe the entire base area.
>>
> Or perhaps "incorrectly redefined"?  Your page seems to contradict 
> itself - at the top it says:
>
>>   * building <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building>=*
>>     /mandatory when the area is a single building/
>>   * landuse
>>     <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse>=military
>>     <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dmilitary>
>>     /mandatory when the area is not just one building/
>>
> and lower down it says:
>
>> Prior to January 2021, this tag was defined as "Military barracks 
>> where soldiers live and work", and on older features this tag may 
>> still have this meaning, which is similar to the newer tag military 
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:military>=base 
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:military%3Dbase>. 
>
> So which part of your page is correct - the top part (which would make 
> your complaint about iD moot) or the bottom part (which seems to try 
> and redefine a tag that has an existing meaning in OSM, which is 
> surely a mistake)?
>
> What iD does seems compliant with what the top part of what your page 
> says, and also with how I personally would always have mapped a 
> military barracks (but probably never have).
>


Yes, bit mixed. I would think


building=military - mandatory, with

military=barracks - mandatory on the same way/node as the above building.


Then

landuse=military  mandatory on the surrounding area, how big that area 
is depends on the military base. A one building barracks would still be 
a military area?


I would not refer to the past, just when this tag was redefined, reduces 
confusion by not mentioning the past definition.

And yes, I would simply delete the confusing test.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210413/7dafd0cb/attachment.htm>