Anthony wrote: >2009/10/13 Martin Koppenhoefer ><dieterdre...@gmail.com>: >>IMHO landuse=military is already what you want to express with >>boundary=military. > >Then all the landuse=military tags can be changed, and >landuse=military can be deprecated. > >On the other hand, ownership=military and/or access=military makes >more sense than boundary=military.
Just catching up on some posts, and since I'll eventually be dealing with this issue, I thought I'd throw in a comment. To me, in the US, boundary=military makes sense from the perspective that a military base is usually under federal jurisdiction, rather than the state and local jurisdiction of the political/administrative boundaries around it. For example, local/state law enforcement usually only have access by permission. My preference would be something like the following for a case which I'll probably end up mapping when I can get around to it: boundary=militiary ownership=US Department of Defense (optional) administration=US Navy name=Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth old_name=Carswell Air Force Base Granted there will be boundary overlays or intersections, in some cases, since, for example, military installations can span county lines, but so can cities. It does allow for multiple interior land-uses, such as golf courses, residential, etc. This particular situation gets more complex, since there is a large leased aircraft manufacturing facility within the boundary. And, some other countries would have some interesting situations to tag where they are hosting foreign (usually US) military facilities. I'm not sure exactly how all the juristicional issues break out there. -- Randy _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
