themselves(?)). My original point was, that I didn't find it very clear that on one side the definition is: > > ___ > "This proposal aims to introduce a new value for landuse=* for Civic / > Governmental / public institutional building administration complexes, for > correctly tagging areas used by the buildings of local, regional, national, > and supranational administration buildings and capitals. This includes > executive, legislative, ministerial, and mixed-use "public/government/civil" > buildings that administrate citizens or services. > If it is used for administrating/legislating the civilian population or its > programs, a the seat of civil or national power, or a common place for the > civilian population to interact with government-public-civil agents, then > civic_admin is the landuse for the complex." > > ___ > > This (quite long) text seems to imply you could use civic_admin for all > offices and other places part of the executive and legislative power, on all > levels (from local to supranational). > > > > Then under the headline "What to Include?" there is this sentence: > > ___ > > "This is for complexes who's primary purpose is the citizens interaction with > government agents and other civil service workers". > > ___ > > I find this problematic for the reason that "primary purpose" requires some > interpretation and might lead to inconsistencies, and because this seems to > restrict very much (eventually too much) the scope of the key. > > I'm also not sure about the exclusion of police offices: "it is also not > intended to map civic safety services - such as fire stations, police > offices, lifeguard, search and rescue or other safety services." > > We should have some easy rules, with no or few exceptions, and hopefully > expressable / definable in 1, 2 or max. 3 sentences. There can be more text > of course, with examples and explanations (not for stating exceptions), but > the general definition should ideally be one sentence. > > > > > > >> Yea, at a national level there is a big legal and physical separation >> between legislative and executive bodies (White House / Capitol building) - >> they both have different roles, but together they make the sausage. > > > actually the judicial power (supreme court etc.) also is needed to complete > the sausage. The proposal unifies executive and legislative, but excludes the > judicial part, maybe consciously, but I couldn't find a reasoning. > > >> at the supranational landuse level, there is only legislative (UN, NATO, EU, >> etc) as I understand it. > > > well there is for instance the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the > Hague, supported by many nations (Europe 41, Asia 11, America 28, Africa 34, > Oceania 8) and more than 1500 NGOs, but opposed by the USA, China, Iran, > Iraq, North Corea, Israel, Cuba, Russia, Pakistan, India, Syria, Saudi > Arabia, Sudan and Turkey. ;-) > > > >> Government is executive, legislative, and judicial together - the military, >> police and penal all spring from those (usually in between 2 of them) but >> the line that landuse is often drawn by is what your role is in relation to >> rules and laws and power, not the legal standing for said power. > > > to make it short, I see it like this: government is administration, police > and military (executive), legislation and judicial are not government > typically, under the strict separation of powers. > > > >> >> - executive and legislative make the laws together > > > the legislation makes the law, the judicial interpretes it, the executive is > ruled by the law, at least that's the theory. > > > >> Thanks again for the thoughtful responses and comments. > > > Thank you for replying so patiently ;-) > > Cheers, > Martin > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
