2011/3/10 Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com>: > Thanks. Maybe a word like "disputed" could be used? I'm very wary of > "illegal" because it's very black and white, and it could be quite > hard to verify the exact legal status. The locals might insist it's > legitimate. > > Perhaps an even more indirect way could be "owner=unknown" or > something.
no, I am totally against this because if you know that a certain place is public terrain, you would do the opposite of what you want: instead of declaring that that fence is illegal you would somehow concede that it might still be OK that it is there. "owner=unknown" is pointless IMHO, as there will always be an owner for a piece of land, and if he is unknown you can omit the tag and have the same information. > It would depend a bit on the motivations of the mapper. > From my perspective, a fence is a fence - it makes no difference who > owns it. But obviously the OP has a use case where it matters. +1. I don't agree with all aspects of this proposal, but I wanted to say that some of the proposed tags have their application use case. Cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
