Jean-Marc Liotier <j...@liotier.org> writes: > On 3/23/19 6:04 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: >> I find the implicit rules really problematic, as we don't have a >> machine-readable repository of them that can be used to processs tags as >> they are to the full logical set of what they mean. > > So, should the amenity=place_of_worship complex have landuse=religious > too ? I wouldn't mind - if a consensus here believes so.
My view is perhaps a bit extreme, which is that ideally everything that has human use would have some landuse tag. I prefer explicit representation of landuse and landcover both, with a clear logical separation between these two concepts. So in a situation where there is a church building and parking lot (carpark in en_GB) on a parcel (area of land under one ownership), I would put landuse=religious. Same for something larger with more buildings. And if there were two unrelated churches on two adjacent lots, I would ideally put only one landuse=religious object (which might get into relations), since landuse is not about per parcel or per object, but about groups of them. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
