On 2018-09-20 12:22, John Willis wrote:
>> On Sep 20, 2018, at 5:39 PM, Colin Smale <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe it's just me, but I really can't understand why landuse for government
>> functions needs its own tagging. The buildings are often indistinguishable
>> from commercial properties
>
> Why does what the buildings look like matter?
That is yet another dimension - architectural style. But why is
"government" a specific case of "land use"? It is actually referring to
the activity carried on within.
> Many parks are indistinguishable from natural=grassland or landuse=farmland,
> but we make the distinction.
There could be areas which are all three at once. At a macro scale, part
of a farm, but a field to which the public has controlled access.
> In many places, a city hall is a very different place than an ordinary office
> building - even if we don't care that much about them.
If you are talking about architectural style, I agree. You can always
find examples to show this, and I am sure there are examples which show
the opposite as well. But this discussion is about land usage, and
whether a government office is any different to any other office in
terms of the usage of the land.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
