Graeme and Steve, I think Steve is pretty close to my thoughts in his last para. My thoughts are ...
I think keeping it as a general tag for the time being sounds reasonable. Ewen Sent from Mail for Windows From: stevea On Jul 26, 2022, at 5:31 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Have just spotted a Note where an anonymous user has given company name & address details for a Medicinal Cannabis plant. > > Checking to confirm details & found a news article that said, yes, the plant is near Mildura, but "Due to the nature of its business, however, it has a secret location and isn’t open to the public." > > The company involved doesn't have the plant address listed on it's website. > > Should we map it? We map cannabis facilities in California; cannabis is legal here. I am of the opinion that "if it is in the world, it can be mapped." There are things that people say we SHOULD not map, and I have even seen some well-reasoned arguments which cause me to nod my head. For example, I once mapped some hiking trails (as access=no) on closed-to-the-public land. I was asked by the owner (land steward, really; ownership is a "public land trust") to remove them, as he convinced me that "these trails are still under development, they are not yet 'real' trails, but will be after they are developed and the land is properly opened to the public." You might choose to use "more generic" tags, like building=industrial and "leave it at that." (I note with some amusement that you cay "Cannabis 'plant'" and that could be a manufacturing facility, or a rooted dicotyledon growing in the earth — I assume the former). Adding something like access=private couldn't hurt (if true). _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au |
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
