2009/10/13 John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com>: >> This does not sound completely strange, but still incorporates some >> problems (all currently tagged landuse=military will get deprecated). >> I don't see the big problem here, as you can >> 1. draw a landuse=military around the whole area (and probably >> military=barracks) >> 2. draw a landuse=forest around the actual forest >> 3. draw a landuse=school around the actual school (or building=school >> for the school-building) >> 4. draw and tag the parking_lot where it is. >> >> IMHO landuse=military is already what you want to express with >> boundary=military. The boundary-object can be tagged as >> barrier=fence/wall/whatever with entrances, gates, videosurveillance >> etc. > > What about using a relation to add secondary land uses?
why? If the landuse is inside another landuse, and not excluded by multipolygon, why use a relation (it is more complicated and breaks easier). What would be the benefit? There is a proposal to do so anyway (site-relation). cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
