2009/10/13 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@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. >
I tend to disagree with you. Landuse should be exclusive by definition. As someone pointed out before in a separate message, this is trying to be a work around the fact that to some extent landuse is broken in some cases. We would like to avoid having two super imposed landuse as much as possible. As we get something more and more complex, we will end up with priority rules over landuse which is I believe is not desirable. We could be tagging for the renderer and using layer=*, but that's not an adequate solution, not even close. This particular case is trying to solve the issue that we see in France with military bases with buildings, forest, fields, etc... inside a military base. Anyway some of the comments you are making are making sense but it is just relying on the renderer to get it right. Emilie Laffray
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
