Yes I agree we should not include them, for two main reasons:
- landuse should not describe ownership, by any means. Ownership
is not publicly verifiable, they remain closed source. Even
when land registries (fr/cadastre de/Kataster) now publish
property boundaries, the owner remains closed. No other
landuse tag describes ownership, and this proposal should not
establish a precedent.
- transportation is sufficiently covered by existing landuse tags,
there is landuse=railway and aeroway=aerodrome for the major
infrastructure. Their headquarters can stand on landuse=commercial
as there is usually some usage fee involved. Who operates them
should be described in the operator= tag.
tom
[email protected] wrote on 2014-11-07 10:04:
On Fri Nov 07 2014 07:30:30 GMT+0000 (GMT), Colin Smale wrote:
I would not expect the landuse value of the municipal bus company's HQ
to change if the bus company was privatised... Only the ownership will
have changed, nothing else. Actually, as the buildings are probably
leased from a property company anyway, even that would stay the same.
Just the shareholders of the company would different.
So I would suggest "civic" or "government" or whatever should only be
applied where the activities taking place there are actually "civic
administration" - council meetings, committees, births/deaths/marriages,
highways,..... i.e. the core business of a local authority as defined in
law. Sidelines like running transport companies or sports grounds are
not "landuse=civic" to my mind.
+1
I totally agree Colin, it would be equally ridiculous to tag schools or parks
as civic.
Phil (trigpoint )
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
