[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Multiple landuse

[Peter Elderson]

Don't the other solutions (_1, _2 etc) and landuse=...;...;.. etc also
imply or strongly suggest hierarchy? Any datauser equipped for 1 landuse
would take the first, for 2 landuses the first two etc.

_1 and _2 introduce new keys, and the same goes for the proposed
landuse:... keys. Only the list of values option has only one key.

Overlapping landuses for the cases presented are also hierarchical: the
smaller ones are on top of the larger ones.

Just saying...

I still approve the proposal as a viable solution, but the arguments
presented against other options are not very strong I think.

Also, I think the tagging instruction is not very clear, I couldn't even
have come up with the exact tagging for the two cases presented, from the
verbal instruction only.

Peter Elderson


Op wo 29 sep. 2021 om 13:39 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdreist at gmail.com>:

> Am Di., 28. Sept. 2021 um 21:23 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging at openstreetmap.org>:
>
>> 2) I am not convinced at all that
>> landuse:secondary=*, landuse:tertiary=*, landuse:quaternary=*
>> is better than overlapping landuses
>>
>
>
> there is a difference in semantics though, secondary, tertiary, etc.
> indicate a hierarchy, while overlapping landuse objects don't. Not implying
> that one is worse than the other, but they aren't equivalent.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210929/14e28532/attachment.htm>