> Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:45:28 +0200 > From: Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > <[email protected]> > Subject: [Tagging] access agricultural, WAS Re: Reviving the > conditions debate > Message-ID: > <CABPTjTC42=+em2ag9qax7btnm60eaujtak3bfx-aa9_cahj...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > How can we resolve this? It seems obvious that we need either 2 tags > for agricultural (according to the legislation, either a vehicle class > or a use case is intended), or we accept that the same tag has > different meanings in different legislations/countries. Personally I > am in favour of an additional tag. We could also have 2 new tags: > "agricultural_use" and "agricultural_vehicle" to make it unambiguous, > and to deprecate the unclear agricultural.
very easy. use the 1.5 proposal :-). for germany you could use access:motorized&&agricultural=yes. in developing countries, where motor vehicles are not common for most people, you could just use the role: access:agricultural=yes. That is the whole purpose of splitting user roles and transportation modes. and you don't run into the risk of a "germanification" of openstreetmap by always taking the german law or other western country laws as the basis for all tagging rules and leave out underrepresented countries. flaimo _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
