Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> writes: > sent from a phone > >> On 24 Jun 2023, at 00:29, Minh Nguyen <m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us> wrote: >> >> But if we focus too pedantically on legal status at the expense of >> common sense, then we've reinvented designation=*, and mappers and >> data consumers have to find yet another key to express what could've >> been in highway=*. > > oh yes, absolutely, if legal status and common sense/reality are not > congruent we should record both.
That isn't that case. What's going on is that people want to pay attention to legal definitions of words (whose proper scope is only reading the law). Describing reality is actually quite straightforward. For example: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dcannabis In Massachusetts, as in many US states, such activities are permitted under state law, but are absolutely prohibited under Federal law. Despite this, many people, whether due to a desire to deceive or a lack of understanding, say things like "marijuana is legal in Massachusetts" :-) However it is not being enforced. But none of that matters to OSM; if there is a shop that is selling cannabis, then it is tagged as such, regardless of whether it is a federal crime but not a state crime, a crime under neither legal regime, or a crime under both. And it doesn't matter exactly how either regime defines what is or is not unlawful. So I find the attention to legal definitions in the present discussion bizarre. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
