[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Defensive works

[Jeroen Hoek]

On 10-11-2021 18:11, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> The main problem with this new (for me)  proposal […]

It was discussed in multiple places, including this list (in June).

> It is not applicable to Celtic Hill Fort, or a Roman fort, or the 
> Great Wall of China, or pre-Renaissance fortified castles, any other 
> of a large number of other fortifications in different places or
> time periods.

Why not? defensive_work=* is open-ended and amenable to extension (cf.
the 'user-defined' mention on the bottom row of the table of proposed
definitions).

The values for this key seem limited only to the use of "technical terms
in fortification engineering" which seems sensible and flexible enough
at the same time.

-------------- 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/20211110/9ea992e8/attachment.sig>