> > Ground/land, air/aviation & maritime/naval all seem pretty well > interchangeable, space is ready for the future & we should also include > amphibious & probably Staff / Command / Headquarters for somewhere like > this place: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/89605! Currently > office=military & also office+government (together with building=public?), > so would become landuse=military + military=base + > military_service=joint_forces + function/branch="command" - sound good? >
Yes, this makes sense in broad strokes, though some thought is needed as to the exact set of keys and values would be needed to describe these things. > I don't think we'd need to drill down further into what "type" of unit it > is (Armour, Artillery, Engineers, MP etc) as that will just introduce a > whole realm of further confusion, especially if it's being done by > non-Military mappers, plus which I also still have some security concerns > about identifying things too accurately‽ > I think it would be fine to have a way to tag such unit identifiers, though there can be multiple tenant units within a base, so this is possibly beyond the scope of base tagging. I did mention earlier in reply to one of the comments that (previously > base=) military_service=yes / unknown would be OK if you can't work out > what's in there, so that should hopefully cover that problem? > I do not think that military_service=yes or =unknown should be included in the proposal. For the "=unknown" situation, this is accomplished by simply omitting the tag, and for the "=yes" situation, this is redundant with the military=* tag.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
