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

Gilles Corlobé gilles at corlobe.tk
Wed Oct 14 05:45:20 BST 2009

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Joseph Reeves [mailto:iknowjoseph at gmail.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 14 octobre 2009 00:07
> À : Morten Kjeldgaard
> Cc : Gilles Corlobé; talk at openstreetmap.org
> Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal
> - RFC - (boundary=military)
> > 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
In my opinion, the tag "landuse=military" should only be used for specificly
military activities, like those discribed in the wiki. 
Some of you have suggested to create 2 areas, covering the same place. I
don't think this is correct. One of you said that's done every day. How can
it be? There can't be a forest inside a residential area. The residential
area stops where begins the forest (and the contrary).

More information about the talk mailing list