[Talk-us] Gov't/military firing ranges --- not "sport"

[Dale Puch]

I think I see your concern.  I think Military should be tagged as Richard
suggested, and the civilian ranges, including police should still be
sport:shooting both per the wiki.
Police use public ranges sometiems (or are open to public use) and if not
they are reasonable contained and controlled to police only access anyhow.
Would you be concerned about highway:raceway not conveying the danger of the
area?  You could be killed wandering around the wrong parts of either one.
No need to over think things, and you can't eliminate the need for common
sense with better tagging.

-- 
Dale Puch

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 1:16 PM, David Carmean <dlc at halibut.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 10:39:37AM -0400, Richard Welty wrote:
> > On 5/8/10 9:40 AM, David Carmean wrote:
> > > I'm reluctant to tag civil/military gov't firing ranges as "sport".
>  I'd consider them
> > > more as hazardous areas to mark/avoid, but I don't know how to tag them
> as such.  Ideas?
> > >
> > landuse=military
> > military=danger_area
> >
> > and
> >
> > landuse=military
> > military=range
> >
> > are both documented in the wiki:
> >
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Military
> >
> > i should think you would use danger_area even for inactive ranges, due
> > to the potential for
> > unexploded munitions.
>
> Ah, ok; I think I made my question too generic; I actually want to map
> civil
> government (i.e. police) ranges 90% of the time.....
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20100508/e9dd6161/attachment.html>