2009/10/13 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > 2009/10/13 John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com>: >>> This does not sound completely strange, but still incorporates some >>> problems (all currently tagged landuse=military will get deprecated). >>> I don't see the big problem here, as you can >>> 1. draw a landuse=military around the whole area (and probably >>> military=barracks) >>> 2. draw a landuse=forest around the actual forest >>> 3. draw a landuse=school around the actual school (or building=school >>> for the school-building) >>> 4. draw and tag the parking_lot where it is. >>> >>> IMHO landuse=military is already what you want to express with >>> boundary=military. The boundary-object can be tagged as >>> barrier=fence/wall/whatever with entrances, gates, videosurveillance >>> etc. >> >> What about using a relation to add secondary land uses? > > why? If the landuse is inside another landuse, and not excluded by > multipolygon, why use a relation (it is more complicated and breaks > easier). What would be the benefit? There is a proposal to do so > anyway (site-relation).
I thought the problem was due to a polygon not being able to be used for 2 different landuse=* tags... _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
