Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(boundary=military)
Anthony wrote: 2009/10/13 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: IMHO landuse=military is already what you want to express with boundary=military. Then all the landuse=military tags can be changed, and landuse=military can be deprecated. On the other hand, ownership=military and/or access=military makes more sense than boundary=military. Just catching up on some posts, and since I'll eventually be dealing with this issue, I thought I'd throw in a comment. To me, in the US, boundary=military makes sense from the perspective that a military base is usually under federal jurisdiction, rather than the state and local jurisdiction of the political/administrative boundaries around it. For example, local/state law enforcement usually only have access by permission. My preference would be something like the following for a case which I'll probably end up mapping when I can get around to it: boundary=militiary ownership=US Department of Defense (optional) administration=US Navy name=Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth old_name=Carswell Air Force Base Granted there will be boundary overlays or intersections, in some cases, since, for example, military installations can span county lines, but so can cities. It does allow for multiple interior land-uses, such as golf courses, residential, etc. This particular situation gets more complex, since there is a large leased aircraft manufacturing facility within the boundary. And, some other countries would have some interesting situations to tag where they are hosting foreign (usually US) military facilities. I'm not sure exactly how all the juristicional issues break out there. -- Randy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC-(boundary=military)
Anthony wrote: On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Randy rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com wrote: To me, in the US, boundary=military makes sense from the perspective that a military base is usually under federal jurisdiction, rather than the state and local jurisdiction of the political/administrative boundaries around it. I don't like the usually, and I don't like the fact that this federal exclusive jurisdiction is something which can exist in non-military areas (such as federal prisons or federal parks) as well. I'd rather see boundary=federal enclave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_enclave) or something like that to represent this. You'd still likely want something=military in addition, but the jurisdictional issue should be solved once, not repeatedly for each different situation. I'm OK with that. I assume you mean the something=military is a property of the boundary way, as well. It overtly fits the description of federal enclave in wikipedia. What would you suggest as a name for the key, something, or is there something out there already? If not, possibly this needs to be thrown to region.us. Wikipedia defines federal enclave in US terms. I thought about a more general approach with boundary=enclave, admin_level=2, but, there is a relation role=enclave, that doesn't really fit the federal enclave situation, since the federal enclave is actually within the federal boundary, but excludes lower levels of administration. The current enclave role might fit a US base hosted in a foreign country, though. -- Randy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Are tunnels only below ground? (Was Highway property proposal covered-yes)
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Here is some examples (talk-de) what some people think to be accurately tagged as tunnel whilst it will obfuscate the database if we would. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C3%BCckenrasthaus_Frankenwald this one is not rendered correctly if just using layer=1 on the building due to mapnik rules (they always render ways above buildings and do not respect layers for these cases). http://www.blogwiese.ch/wp-content/emmitunnel.jpg this one produces the obstacle-problem you would not have with a real tunnel. I can understand someone's logic in tagging your first example as a tunnel, but I would tag it highway=pedestrian bridge=yes covered=yes Or, if you didn't want to show the pedestrian way, just make it a building layered on over the highway. It is sufficiently different, functionally and architecturally, from the connecting buildings do that. For your second example, yes, I'd be tempted to tag it as a tunnel, since it doesn't seem to span anything. There are always the rare exceptions to every rule. But, I'd want to know more about its function and what, if anything it is attached to, before I did anything. It appears to be just sitting there with no purpose from the vantage point of the photograph. It certainly doesn't appear to be a covered bridge. If it is a covered rail station, then I would probably tag is as covered railway rather than a tunnel, assuming covered becomes an accepted property for highways and such. -- Randy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC-(boundary=military)
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Randy rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com wrote: Anthony wrote: On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Randy rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com wrote: I'd rather see boundary=federal enclave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_enclave) or something like that to represent this. You'd still likely want something=military in addition, but the jurisdictional issue should be solved once, not repeatedly for each different situation. I'm OK with that. I assume you mean the something=military is a property of the boundary way, as well. Only when the military area is exactly equal to the federal enclave area. This may or may not be the case depending on the definition of the military area and the specifics of the situation. It overtly fits the description of federal enclave in wikipedia. What would you suggest as a name for the key, something, or is there something out there already? Depends on what you want to describe. If it's the ownership, ownership. If it's who is allowed to access the land, access. If it's what the land is used for (and not who it's used by), landuse. On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Randy rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com wrote: What would you suggest as a name for the key, something, or is there something out there already? If not, possibly this needs to be thrown to region.us. Wikipedia defines federal enclave in US terms. I thought about a more general approach with boundary=enclave, admin_level=2, but, there is a relation role=enclave, that doesn't really fit the federal enclave situation, since the federal enclave is actually within the federal boundary, but excludes lower levels of administration. The current enclave role might fit a US base hosted in a foreign country, though. I would guess it's very much a US-specific thing, since we're one of the few (only?) places with that whole dual-sovereignty thing going on. Admin_level=3? Admin_level=5? Admin_level=4? I don't know. What's used for the District of Columbia? This is similar, jurisdiction-wise, though it differs in the fact that the land wasn't actually ceded from the state. (Answer is admin_level=4, but in that case it's *also* a state border, because the state actually ceded the land.) As for the use of the term enclave, it's a bit too confusing trying to wrap my head around how to apply enclave in the face of dual-sovereignty. I certainly wouldn't use that term by itself - it'd be far too ambiguous. Federal enclave seems to be well defined and unambiguous. But it's long and has a space in it. Honestly, I don't really like the whole admin_level thing in the first place. It doesn't fit the reality of the situation - Florida is not an administrative level of the United States, just as France is not an administrative level of the EU. So I'll let others battle that one out. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
