Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Russ Nelson wrote: simple example I tagged shop=lawyer On this list someone said that they didn't think that lawyer belonged in shop but office=legal. I saw that. Simply because someone else offered a different idea doesn't make your idea not good. If I suggested that it should be tagged shop=office AND office=legal, would that be a better idea? This comes from a discussion of whether we should tag and be dammed or spend all night searching the wiki for an appropriate combination or write a schema covering every possible case before we make an edit. I don't believe that any one is correct to the exclusion of all others ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
Liz writes: On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Russ Nelson wrote: simple example I tagged shop=lawyer On this list someone said that they didn't think that lawyer belonged in shop but office=legal. I saw that. Simply because someone else offered a different idea doesn't make your idea not good. If I suggested that it should be tagged shop=office AND office=legal, would that be a better idea? This comes from a discussion of whether we should tag and be dammed or spend all night searching the wiki for an appropriate combination or write a schema covering every possible case before we make an edit. I don't believe that any one is correct to the exclusion of all others Ah! Then you agree with me, because I propose that people tag AND read/write to the wiki. Neither being damned nor staying up all night. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
Dave F. writes: The just go ahead do it philosophy that some advocate just puts errors into OSM that may not get fully removed, especially if they've been around for a while have been copied by others. Please go back to my proposed steps. What errors do you see defined there? The only error that I see is to fail to document your use of a tag in the wiki. Because other, more serious errors, are averted by your attempt to document it. If it's already there, and has a different meaning than the one you have chosen, there's your red flag that proceeding would be an error. Map it, tag it, and document it. Worry less about making a misteak, and map more. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Russ Nelson wrote: Map it, tag it, and document it. Worry less about making a misteak, and map more. could we make research other tags in similar use be part of this list and make the search process easier? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
Liz writes: On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Russ Nelson wrote: Map it, tag it, and document it. Worry less about making a misteak, and map more. could we make research other tags in similar use be part of this list and make the search process easier? This google search has always worked for me: site:wiki.openstreetmap.org landuse orchard -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
Liz writes: On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote: Before you propose a tag, you should be using it. Why? To show people how you're using it. http://osm.org/ Doesn't it make sense to ask around before using something - someone may come up with a good example they are already using, If I want to use key=value, and key=value isn't defined yet, then *by definition* anybody else's example isn't good. If it was good, then it would capture all the key=values that have the same meaning. For example, if you think it should be boundary=military/service=army rather than boundary=army, then you should put in a redirect from Tag:boundary=army to Tag:boundary=military#army . If somebody disagrees with you, they can edit that page away from being a simple redirect, insert their reasoning and include Tag:boundary=military#army as a link to other people have different opinions. or a simple reason why your tag is not good. Could you list some simple reasons, please? I don't understand what you mean by not good. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Russ Nelson wrote: or a simple reason why your tag is not good. Could you list some simple reasons, please? I don't understand what you mean by not good. simple example I tagged shop=lawyer On this list someone said that they didn't think that lawyer belonged in shop but office=legal. Within the last month, I'd say, it you want to search for it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
2009/10/16 Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com: Liz writes: On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote: Before you propose a tag, you should be using it. Why? To show people how you're using it. http://osm.org/ Just because you use something, doesn't mean you picked the right combination of a key/value pair and that someone else couldn't suggest something better before you waste your time doing something that will only need to be re-done. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
Liz writes: On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Russ Nelson wrote: or a simple reason why your tag is not good. Could you list some simple reasons, please? I don't understand what you mean by not good. simple example I tagged shop=lawyer On this list someone said that they didn't think that lawyer belonged in shop but office=legal. I saw that. Simply because someone else offered a different idea doesn't make your idea not good. If I suggested that it should be tagged shop=office AND office=legal, would that be a better idea? Neither one is documented in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:office=legal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=lawyer (A note to anybody who thinks the wiki shouldn't be the be-all and end-all: do you think that tags should all be documented? Do you think they should be documented in one place? Then if not the wiki, where? -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
Pieren writes: On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Why wait? Tag boldly and document what you did in the wiki. No, no and no. If you are unsure or unhappy with existing tags, then document, suggest and discuss before putting crap in OSM ! Why? If it's documented, in what way is it crap? If you see something, and tag it with foo=bar, and then write a page at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:foo=bar describing why the foo key is set to the value bar, then 1) mappers who think to use the same tag can use it the same way you did, and 2) anybody who's looking at the map data can look at your documentation to understand what foo=bar means. The only problem with tagging foo=bar is that it's not likely that anybody else will choose the same key, value pair. Okay, so solve that problem by tagging it with boundary=military. The only remaining problem that I can see is that somebody might look for Tag:boundary=military, not find it (which is actually currently the case) and create their own definition for it. But that's an argument for tagging boldly to which you've already objected. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
2009/10/14 Gilles Corlobé gil...@corlobe.tk: Joseph In my opinion, the tag landuse=military should only be used for specificly military activities, like those discribed in the wiki. Some of you have suggested to create 2 areas, covering the same place. I don't think this is correct. One of you said that's done every day. How can it be? There can't be a forest inside a residential area. The residential area stops where begins the forest (and the contrary). Gilles might be true for residential and forest (still if it is a small forest could IMHO be as well inside the residential area), but there is other examples where e.g. forest or lake or railway-area or sth. else is inside another landuse, thus being part of it. Think of parks, a lake in the forest, a forest in a nature reserve, a forest in a military area, ... If it is not part of it, it has to be excluded by the use of a multipolygon-relation. cheers, Martin PS: What about continuing this discussion only in tagging-ML? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
Gilles Corlobé writes: I propose to add a tag boundary=military Where is this tag currently being used? Please point to several examples so we can see what you mean. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
-Message d'origine- De : Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com] Envoyé : mardi 13 octobre 2009 16:38 À : Gilles Corlobé Cc : talk@openstreetmap.org Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military) Gilles Corlobé writes: I propose to add a tag boundary=military Where is this tag currently being used? Please point to several examples so we can see what you mean. This tag is not currently used. But it could be very usefull here : http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz-- Inside the miltary area, there is : a forest, a research center, a high-school, a sport complexe with swiming pool, a parking lot, and accomodations for all the seamen (it's a navy facility). Gilles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
On 13 Oct 2009, at 16:35, Gilles Corlobé wrote: -Message d'origine- De : Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com] Envoyé : mardi 13 octobre 2009 16:38 À : Gilles Corlobé Cc : talk@openstreetmap.org Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military) Gilles Corlobé writes: I propose to add a tag boundary=military Where is this tag currently being used? Please point to several examples so we can see what you mean. This tag is not currently used. But it could be very usefull here : http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz-- Inside the miltary area, there is : a forest, a research center, a high-school, a sport complexe with swiming pool, a parking lot, and accomodations for all the seamen (it's a navy facility). Before you propose a tag, you should be using it. Do you have any photos of this? For example signs. Shaun smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
-Message d'origine- De : Shaun McDonald [mailto:sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk] Envoyé : mardi 13 octobre 2009 17:46 À : Gilles Corlobé Cc : talk@openstreetmap.org Objet : **SPAM ENGLISH BODY** Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military) On 13 Oct 2009, at 16:35, Gilles Corlobé wrote: -Message d'origine- De : Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com] Envoyé : mardi 13 octobre 2009 16:38 À : Gilles Corlobé Cc : talk@openstreetmap.org Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military) Gilles Corlobé writes: I propose to add a tag boundary=military Where is this tag currently being used? Please point to several examples so we can see what you mean. This tag is not currently used. But it could be very usefull here : http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz-- Inside the miltary area, there is : a forest, a research center, a high-school, a sport complexe with swiming pool, a parking lot, and accomodations for all the seamen (it's a navy facility). Before you propose a tag, you should be using it. Do you have any photos of this? For example signs. Shaun The photo on the page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_area commes from there. And before using it, I wanted to get its approval from the community. But if it's ok, I'll do it. Gilles smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
Gilles Corlobé writes: This tag is not currently used. But it could be very usefull here : http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz-- Why wait? Tag boldly and document what you did in the wiki. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
-Message d'origine- De : talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk- boun...@openstreetmap.org] De la part de Russ Nelson Envoyé : mardi 13 octobre 2009 17:54 À : talk@openstreetmap.org Objet : **SPAM ENGLISH BODY** Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military) Gilles Corlobé writes: This tag is not currently used. But it could be very usefull here : http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz-- Why wait? Tag boldly and document what you did in the wiki. I didn't know I didn't have to wait the approval. It's now done : http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz-- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Why wait? Tag boldly and document what you did in the wiki. No, no and no. If you are unsure or unhappy with existing tags, then document, suggest and discuss before putting crap in OSM ! Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
2009/10/14 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: 2009/10/13 Gilles Corlobé gil...@corlobe.tk: I didn't know I didn't have to wait the approval. It's now done : http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz-- Gilles, your approach was the correct one. Don't follow those stupid advices from guys how want the chaos in OSM. Making proposals and having discussions will show you if you are in the good way or not. And if your first idea was wrong, you don't have to revert your edits. Or update the same thing 10 times because once you do tag and update people will say it's wrong and you should have done it some other way... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
On 13/10/2009, at 10.14, Gilles Corlobé wrote: Hello everybody, I propose to add a tag boundary=military : the problem is that, with the existing tags, it's almost impossible to mark correctly lots of data, like (non limitative list) forest, scholl, parking lot, … Rather than multiplying the military=* tag, I suggest to only mark the external limit of the military area. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_base Comments are welcomed on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Military_base To be honest I don't see the point. You should use the already existing landuse=military. School, parking lot, etc. that you mentioned should be rendered on top of that, like landuse=residential. Using landuse also avoids certain ambiguities like: which side of the boundary is the military area? Cheers, Morten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote: Before you propose a tag, you should be using it. Why? Doesn't it make sense to ask around before using something - someone may come up with a good example they are already using, or a simple reason why your tag is not good. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
2009/10/13 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: 2009/10/13 Gilles Corlobé gil...@corlobe.tk: I didn't know I didn't have to wait the approval. It's now done : http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz-- Gilles, your approach was the correct one. Don't follow those stupid advices from guys how want the chaos in OSM. Making proposals and having discussions will show you if you are in the good way or not. And if your first idea was wrong, you don't have to revert your edits. +1. But you will have to change the wiki, if your proposal wasn't good, that's why I'd recommend to first ask, than make the proposal, unless you're very sure (I did the same mistake yesterday, btw). actually I still think it's a duplicate that comes from a misunderstanding of the rules, that is, you shouldn't tag 2 landuse=xy to the same object, but of course you can have overlapping ones. I recommend to tag landuse=military, because that's what it is, and probably an appropriate barrier. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
Shaun McDonald wrote: On 13 Oct 2009, at 16:35, Gilles Corlobé wrote: -Message d'origine- De : Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com] Envoyé : mardi 13 octobre 2009 16:38 À : Gilles Corlobé Cc : talk@openstreetmap.org Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military) Gilles Corlobé writes: I propose to add a tag boundary=military Where is this tag currently being used? Please point to several examples so we can see what you mean. This tag is not currently used. But it could be very usefull here : http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz-- Inside the miltary area, there is : a forest, a research center, a high-school, a sport complexe with swiming pool, a parking lot, and accomodations for all the seamen (it's a navy facility). Before you propose a tag, you should be using it. How?? He's proposing it's introduction for use! If he's already using it then a proposal is pointless!! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
To be honest I don't see the point. You should use the already existing landuse=military. School, parking lot, etc. that you mentioned should be rendered on top of that, like landuse=residential. Using landuse also avoids certain ambiguities like: which side of the boundary is the military area? +1 Perhaps also use a relation to tie various landuses together into a military-base=name group or something similar. If the OP doesn't like how nested landuse is rendered in a specific renderer should they not file a bug with the maintainers of that renderer? Seems better than adding to the db. Joseph 2009/10/13 Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.au.dk: On 13/10/2009, at 10.14, Gilles Corlobé wrote: Hello everybody, I propose to add a tag boundary=military : the problem is that, with the existing tags, it's almost impossible to mark correctly lots of data, like (non limitative list) forest, scholl, parking lot, … Rather than multiplying the military=* tag, I suggest to only mark the external limit of the military area. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Military_base Comments are welcomed on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Military_base To be honest I don't see the point. You should use the already existing landuse=military. School, parking lot, etc. that you mentioned should be rendered on top of that, like landuse=residential. Using landuse also avoids certain ambiguities like: which side of the boundary is the military area? Cheers, Morten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
Pieren wrote: 2009/10/13 Gilles Corlobé gil...@corlobe.tk: I didn't know I didn't have to wait the approval. It's now done : http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz-- Gilles, your approach was the correct one. Don't follow those stupid advices from guys how want the chaos in OSM. Making proposals and having discussions will show you if you are in the good way or not. And if your first idea was wrong, you don't have to revert your edits. +1 Always ask for advice opinion if you're unsure of your suggestions. The just go ahead do it philosophy that some advocate just puts errors into OSM that may not get fully removed, especially if they've been around for a while have been copied by others. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
2009/10/14 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: Pieren wrote: 2009/10/13 Gilles Corlobé gil...@corlobe.tk: I didn't know I didn't have to wait the approval. It's now done : http://osm.org/go/xXEahwWz-- Gilles, your approach was the correct one. Don't follow those stupid advices from guys how want the chaos in OSM. Making proposals and having discussions will show you if you are in the good way or not. And if your first idea was wrong, you don't have to revert your edits. +1 Always ask for advice opinion if you're unsure of your suggestions. The just go ahead do it philosophy that some advocate just puts errors into OSM that may not get fully removed, especially if they've been around for a while have been copied by others. Technically they aren't errors, just inconsistent data that isn't useful for anything unless someone cleans it up first, which takes a lot more effort that could have been avoided in the first place with a little planning. That's assuming you don't get people using the same/similar tags to mean different things of course, in which case you would have to manually clean up the data since a computer most likely wouldn't understand the context nor how to express it to a human. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
-Message d'origine- De : Joseph Reeves [mailto:iknowjos...@gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 14 octobre 2009 00:07 À : Morten Kjeldgaard Cc : Gilles Corlobé; talk@openstreetmap.org Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military) To be honest I don't see the point. You should use the already existing landuse=military. School, parking lot, etc. that you mentioned should be rendered on top of that, like landuse=residential. Using landuse also avoids certain ambiguities like: which side of the boundary is the military area? +1 Perhaps also use a relation to tie various landuses together into a military-base=name group or something similar. If the OP doesn't like how nested landuse is rendered in a specific renderer should they not file a bug with the maintainers of that renderer? Seems better than adding to the db. Joseph In my opinion, the tag landuse=military should only be used for specificly military activities, like those discribed in the wiki. Some of you have suggested to create 2 areas, covering the same place. I don't think this is correct. One of you said that's done every day. How can it be? There can't be a forest inside a residential area. The residential area stops where begins the forest (and the contrary). Gilles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
2009/10/14 Gilles Corlobé gil...@corlobe.tk: In my opinion, the tag landuse=military should only be used for specificly military activities, like those discribed in the wiki. Some of you have suggested to create 2 areas, covering the same place. I don't think this is correct. One of you said that's done every day. How can it be? There can't be a forest inside a residential area. The residential area stops where begins the forest (and the contrary). The military have a training area near here: http://osm.org/go/ueWPq0J imho it should have 2 areas, one for the military training area and one for the natural=wood that makes up the majority of the area: http://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8ll=-25.92146,152.938957spn=0.058514,0.111494t=hz=14 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
-Message d'origine- De : John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 14 octobre 2009 06:55 À : Gilles Corlobé Cc : talk@openstreetmap.org Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military) 2009/10/14 Gilles Corlobé gil...@corlobe.tk: In my opinion, the tag landuse=military should only be used for specificly military activities, like those discribed in the wiki. Some of you have suggested to create 2 areas, covering the same place. I don't think this is correct. One of you said that's done every day. How can it be? There can't be a forest inside a residential area. The residential area stops where begins the forest (and the contrary). The military have a training area near here: http://osm.org/go/ueWPq0J imho it should have 2 areas, one for the military training area and one for the natural=wood that makes up the majority of the area: http://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8ll=- 25.92146,152.938957spn=0.058514,0.111494t=hz=14 You're right : If the area is covered by a forest (or a lake, or whatever), it should appear like this on the map. What would a user think if he finds a forest (even if it's in a military area) that is not on the map? And we should remerber that all users are not forbiden to enter into military areas! Some users needs to know the exact nature of the area (to know the size of a forest for example). Gilles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (boundary=military)
2009/10/14 Gilles Corlobé gil...@corlobe.tk: You're right : If the area is covered by a forest (or a lake, or whatever), it should appear like this on the map. What would a user think if he finds a forest (even if it's in a military area) that is not on the map? And we should remerber that all users are not forbiden to enter into military areas! Some users needs to know the exact nature of the area (to know the size of a forest for example). I was just pointing out that there is a good reason to have 2 similar/same areas due to different land uses of the same land. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
