> -----Message d'origine----- > De : John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com] > Envoyé : mercredi 14 octobre 2009 06:55 > À : Gilles Corlobé > Cc : talk@openstreetmap.org > Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal > - RFC - (boundary=military) > > 2009/10/14 Gilles Corlobé <gil...@corlobe.tk>: > > 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). > > The military have a training area near here: > > http://osm.org/go/ueWPq0J > > imho it should have 2 areas, one for the military training area and > one for the natural=wood that makes up the majority of the area: > > http://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8&ll=- > 25.92146,152.938957&spn=0.058514,0.111494&t=h&z=14 You're right : If the area is covered by a forest (or a lake, or whatever), it should appear like this on the map. What would a user think if he finds a forest (even if it's in a military area) that is not on the map? And we should remerber that all users are not forbiden to enter into military areas! Some users needs to know the exact nature of the area (to know the size of a forest for example). Gilles
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
