Historic or abandoned military features, or military ruins, are clearly not what this proposal is describing.
On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 5:44 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 02:00, St Niklaas <st.nikl...@live.nl> wrote: > >> >> Your text or proposal seems to be focused on modern times. >> > > Yes, that's right, as it's intended for current, active, military > establishments only. > > Since every town (vesting) or fortress (fort) has its own barracks in the >> past >> > > Yes, but they are (usually) no longer a military area, so to my mind > shouldn't be mapped as landuse=military? > > I did earlier raise the question of how to deal with historical sites such > as the ones you pointed out? > > "Ex-military bases, now often either historical precincts / tourist > attractions / possibly ruins only eg Fort Lytton > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-27.41058/153.15263, > https://fortlytton.org.au/ & many more similar worldwide. They were, but > are not now military areas, so how should we tag them? > museum + tourist attraction + was:landuse=military + was:military=base, or > ignore all reference to "military"?" > > We could also include "historic=fort" > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dfort but that also > says "a military fort: a stand-alone defensive structure which differs from > a castle in that there is no permanent residence. There may have been > temporary housing for the crew", which I have some issues with? > > (& I can already hear Paul saying just because it's old doesn't > necessarily make it historic! :-)) > > Thanks > > Graeme > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
