On 4 July 2012 15:19, <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not intending to twist an existing tag (some of which are highly debated > anyway - e.g. landuse and landcover), just trying to identify which if any > are of use for these cases. Okay which is preferred out of: > > * designation = millennium_green (or doorstep_green, crow_open_access, etc) > * boundary = millenium_green
I would agree that we shouldn't use a physical tag (eg landuse=*, natural=*) for this, since it's not a physical thing. Equally it's not really a particular useage (eg leisure=*) -- it seems form what's been written as though these areas can come in lots of different forms. We should tag and landuse, natural and leisure values based on what is actually there and how it's used. The edge isn't really a boundary in the same way as admin boundaries -- it's no more of a boundary than the edge of any area feature. The fact that it's a millenium_green is something else, and I think it should be tagged accordingly. I quite like the idea of using designation=millennium_green for this. It does more or less fit with existing use for tagging a particular technical/legal designation of something independent of its physical characteristics. It may be stretching designation=* a little, since it's maybe more of a funding source / scheme than a legal designation with specific implications. But overall, I think designation=millennium_green is a good enough fit, and better than inventing a new tag just for Millennium Greens. (As far as Open Access Land land under the CROW Act goes, there are already 51 uses of designation=access_land in OSM -- quite a few of which may be down to me. This seemed like a natural extension of designation=public_footpath for what is in effect a similar legal designation that gives certain rights to go there on foot.) Robert -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
