[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - defensive structures

[Jeroen Hoek]

On 07-07-2021 12:33, Georg wrote:
> But they might also
> not qualify for historic=* as they are too young or of too little impact
> on history.

Having defensive_structure as top-level tag does make it possible to
freely judge the need for military=* (active function) and historic=*
(or in some cases both!). The documentation would then need to be very
clear that defensive_structure=* is not a sub-tag of
historic=defensive_structure of course.

Also for bunkers recently no longer in use, disused:military=bunker
could be used in the absence of historic=*.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210707/96e85774/attachment.sig>