[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)

Joseph Reeves iknowjoseph at gmail.com
Tue Oct 13 23:06:43 BST 2009


> To be honest I don't see the point. You should use the already
> existing landuse=military. School, parking lot, etc. that you
> mentioned should be rendered on top of that, like landuse=residential.
> Using "landuse" also avoids certain ambiguities like: which side of
> the boundary is the military area?

+1

Perhaps also use a relation to tie various landuses together into a
military-base=name group or something similar.

If the OP doesn't like how nested landuse is rendered in a specific
renderer should they not file a bug with the maintainers of that
renderer? Seems better than adding to the db.

Joseph



2009/10/13 Morten Kjeldgaard <mok at bioxray.au.dk>:
>
> On 13/10/2009, at 10.14, Gilles Corlobé wrote:
>
>> Hello everybody,
>> I propose to add a tag "boundary=military" : the problem is that,
>> with the existing tags, it's almost impossible to mark correctly
>> lots of data, like (non limitative list) forest, scholl, parking
>> lot, …
>> Rather than multiplying the "military=*" tag, I suggest to only mark
>> the external limit of the military area.
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_base
>>
>> Comments are welcomed on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Military_base
>
> To be honest I don't see the point. You should use the already
> existing landuse=military. School, parking lot, etc. that you
> mentioned should be rendered on top of that, like landuse=residential.
> Using "landuse" also avoids certain ambiguities like: which side of
> the boundary is the military area?
>
> Cheers,
> Morten
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>




More information about the talk mailing list