stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> writes: > Each of those seven values for key boundary is documented to be of > element "area" (with the exception of boundary=user defined, where it > is given greater freedom to be assigned to primitives of points and > open polylines). So for Greg to assert that "if it is a boundary, it > should be tagging the line feature, and it's a bug for that to affect > the rendering of the area" just flatly contradicts our wiki. To > summarize, the boundary tag absolutely positively defines areas, not > "line features" (ways as open polylines). I completely disagree with > Greg's conclusion above, but I'm still listening to and participating > in this discussion.
I will concede that my view is contradictory to what's documented. But I think there's a fundamental semantic confusion lurking, in that boundaries are linear features, and properties of land belong as area features. But, I see that admin_level=8 boundaries around towns also let one define which town a particular point is in. What I am uncomfortable with is a proliferation of boundary= which is really trying to set properties of the area. If boundary=national_park is ok, why not boundary=shopping_mall, etc.? (not directed at you in parricular:) As for landuse=conservation, I agree that it's not well supported in the wiki. But I see a principle that every bit of land, more or less separated by ownership or adminstrative control, should have one landuse denoting the primary purpose. For many parcels/etc., 'conservation' more or less sums up the purpose. In general, I think we have a patchwork of tags with confusing semantics. It's a strength of OSM that tag usage grows organically without process constraints, but the other side of the coin is this sort of rethinking and rearranging.
pgptzggkEhkPx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
