fly wrote on 2015-02-17 23:12:
I still do not understand, why we can not use religion=* without any
landuse.
on which area description?
I have no problem to additionally add amenity=place_of_worship or
appropriate tag to the area.
I have.
The same is true for supermarket with there
own area including parking. No problem to tag the whole area
shop=supermarket. For buildings we have building=*.
I have a problem with this method. DIY markets here do their
trading within the building and fenced outdoor areas. That's the
shop, within and without building. Together with facilities like
car parks, often shared among shops, they form the landuse=retail.
Maybe we just lack of a proper tag to describe the area but
landuse=religious is a poor answer.
Anyway, we probably need more of the primary tags anyway as people look
at things from different perspectives and we already have the same
scenario with landuse=forest vs natural=woods vs land_cover=tree.
As far as I understand there can be only one landuse but neither the
proposal nor the wiki page really faces the problem especially regarding
deprecating other landuse like cemetery without offering a replacement.
it is probably for historic reasons that cemetery slipped into the
landuse category. It would be logical to migrate it to amenities, such
as graveyard.
I understand landuse=cementry as a land use but not religious. Anyway we
are using amenity=hospital for the whole area without any use of landuse.
There are plenty of cemeteries that are dominated by a particular religion.
The general problem I see is that people cite historic inconsistencies in the
current tagging scheme as arguments against improvements.
tom
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
