[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Defensive works

Casper Kersten casperkersten1 at gmail.com
Wed Nov 17 14:10:39 UTC 2021


@Volker Schmidt
As Jeroen said, I think this tagging scheme is flexible enough to allow
tags for defensive works that may be found in other parts of the world that
I haven't yet read about. That being said, most fortifications around the
world and throughout history make use of similar principles, such as
elevated positions, walls, bastions, ramparts, ditches and gates, which can
all be tagged with the tagging scheme that I propose.

With this proposal I also try not to tag complete fortifications, as most
of these already have more or less established tagging schemes under keys
like castle_type=*, fortification_type=* and historic=*. I am trying to
fill the gap of tags for structures within these fortifications.

I have been informed that "defensive work" is not proper English, as
"defensive works" is an uncountable noun. Would defensive_works=* or
defensive_structure=* be preferable as the key for these tags?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211117/299af979/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list