> Still not convinced about landuse=religious (could be owner_type=religious).
On Jul 17, 2014, at 5:32 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Am 16/lug/2014 um 23:43 schrieb John Willis <jo...@mac.com>: >> >> It is all a single place, operated by the monks and priests that live or >> work there. For the past 1100 years (it was founded around 900ad). It all >> has a single outer wall or barrier, and is considered the "Naritasan temple >> grounds" > > > so maybe the tag for the whole facility could be temple_grounds (not sure for > the key, could be amenity for instance)? Additionally religion=* and > denomination tags, name etc. > Describing other grounds - education, retail, industrial, etc all fall under landuse. I don't see why religious institutions would be excepted, as the purpose of the land and the facilities on it (overall) are religious, certainly not commercial or retail. > Still not convinced about landuse=religious (could be owner_type=religious). > I understand, but it is really hard for me to see how religious institutions fit under the existing big Retail/Industrial/Residential/Commercial landuses, similar with my loooong thread a bout landuse=civic. I would tag a curch grounds as landuse religious, and the building with the place_of_worship tag, just like landuse=retail and building=shop I really like the idea of generic landuse tags with specific building tags, and I've been trying to get landuses to filling the 2 or 3 missing major landuse types [some feel] are missing. Landuse=religion fills one of those. We have enough tags to fill out the detail on the rest. Maybe it's more about missing consistency than anything. Javbw > cheers, > Martin > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
