Anthony wrote:
2009/10/13 Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com:
IMHO landuse=military is already what you want to express with
boundary=military.
Then all the landuse=military tags can be changed, and
landuse=military can be deprecated.
On the other hand, ownership=military and/or
Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Randy
rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com wrote:
To me, in the US, boundary=military makes sense from the perspective that
a military base is usually under federal jurisdiction, rather than the
state and local jurisdiction of the political/administrative
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Randy rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Randy
rwtnospam-new...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'd rather see boundary=federal enclave
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_enclave) or something like that
to represent this.
2009/10/13 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
2009/10/13 Gilles Corlobé gil...@corlobe.tk:
Hello everybody,
I propose to add a tag boundary=military : the problem is that, with the
existing tags, it's almost impossible to mark correctly lots of data, like
(non limitative list)
2009/10/13 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
IMHO landuse=military is already what you want to express with
boundary=military.
Then all the landuse=military tags can be changed, and
landuse=military can be deprecated.
On the other hand, ownership=military and/or access=military makes
