[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - defensive structures

[Casper Kersten]

@Martin Koppenhoefer The issues I see with bunker_type=* are firstly that
it is already used for (formerly) military objects that do not always exist
as “bunkers,” such as mg nests, foxholes and torpedo launchers, which can
all be called “defensive structures” with little to no ambiguity. Secondly,
bunker_type=* excludes all defensive structures that are not bunkers, while
it would be convenient for mappers and users alike to have them classified
in the same defensive_structure=* key with
military/historic=defensive_structure as optional complementary tags. Actual
bunkers can and should of course also be tagged as building=bunker. This
will stay the same.


@Paul Allen I will share the proposal with the people who
run gk.historic.place. Thank you for the pointer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210708/6067d267/attachment.htm>