"I have no problem to additionally add amenity=place_of_worship or appropriate tag to the area."
It is absurd to tag parking as amenity=place_of_worship or include it in this area - it is not a place of worship. Maybe landuse=religious has problems, but it is a better solution for cases like this. 2015-02-17 23:32 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer <t.pfei...@computer.org>: > fly wrote on 2015-02-17 23:12: > >> I still do not understand, why we can not use religion=* without any >>>> landuse. >>>> >>> >>> on which area description? >>> >> >> I have no problem to additionally add amenity=place_of_worship or >> appropriate tag to the area. >> > > I have. > > The same is true for supermarket with there >> own area including parking. No problem to tag the whole area >> shop=supermarket. For buildings we have building=*. >> > > I have a problem with this method. DIY markets here do their > trading within the building and fenced outdoor areas. That's the > shop, within and without building. Together with facilities like > car parks, often shared among shops, they form the landuse=retail. > > >> Maybe we just lack of a proper tag to describe the area but >> landuse=religious is a poor answer. >> >> Anyway, we probably need more of the primary tags anyway as people look >> at things from different perspectives and we already have the same >> scenario with landuse=forest vs natural=woods vs land_cover=tree. >> >> As far as I understand there can be only one landuse but neither the >>>> proposal nor the wiki page really faces the problem especially regarding >>>> deprecating other landuse like cemetery without offering a replacement. >>>> >>> >>> it is probably for historic reasons that cemetery slipped into the >>> landuse category. It would be logical to migrate it to amenities, such >>> as graveyard. >>> >> >> I understand landuse=cementry as a land use but not religious. Anyway we >> are using amenity=hospital for the whole area without any use of landuse. >> > > There are plenty of cemeteries that are dominated by a particular religion. > > The general problem I see is that people cite historic inconsistencies in > the > current tagging scheme as arguments against improvements. > > tom > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
