I am saying that the land_use tag makes sense for in-ground pools, since they greatly reduce the odds of the land subsequently being used for some other purpose. Yes, I know such reuse does happen on rare occasions; the city of Nashville, TN, closed all of its public pools in the 1960's rather than obey a court order to integrate them, and turned at least one of the pools into a sunken garden.
Bryce Nesbitt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John F. Eldredge > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > You state "The pool after all is a man-made object that just sits on > the > > ground". Some pools sit on the surface of the ground, and so could > > potentially be moved from one location to another. Others are built > into an > > excavation, and can't be moved without demolishing them. They are a > > permanent change to the landscape, unless you fill them in. > > > > Surely you don't mean to suggest we need to map a distinction between > movable and unmovable pools? > > Last week I watched a building getting moved. > > As a kid my parents went to the low rent ski area. The lift poles > were > different colors, sometimes two or three to a pole. The lift > had been assembled from the parts of other lifts decommissioned at > other > areas. > > Everything in the "man_made" category can be > moved, including at unsustainable cost, the in-ground pools. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- [email protected] "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
