> -----Message d'origine----- > De : Joseph Reeves [mailto:[email protected]] > Envoyé : mercredi 14 octobre 2009 00:07 > À : Morten Kjeldgaard > Cc : Gilles Corlobé; [email protected] > Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal > - RFC - (boundary=military) > > > To be honest I don't see the point. You should use the already > > existing landuse=military. School, parking lot, etc. that you > > mentioned should be rendered on top of that, like > landuse=residential. > > Using "landuse" also avoids certain ambiguities like: which side of > > the boundary is the military area? > > +1 > > Perhaps also use a relation to tie various landuses together into a > military-base=name group or something similar. > > If the OP doesn't like how nested landuse is rendered in a specific > renderer should they not file a bug with the maintainers of that > renderer? Seems better than adding to the db. > > Joseph In my opinion, the tag "landuse=military" should only be used for specificly military activities, like those discribed in the wiki. Some of you have suggested to create 2 areas, covering the same place. I don't think this is correct. One of you said that's done every day. How can it be? There can't be a forest inside a residential area. The residential area stops where begins the forest (and the contrary). Gilles
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
