I the other day across an former French military base. It is not longer in use anymore but you can still see the old buildings which are mostly ruins now. It is more or less accessible through some gates which are open by now but I would consider it as "permissive" accessible. So nobody would say something if somebody saw you there but nobody would encourage you either to go there. Right know I taged the are where I came across this problem as a military base (it's more of a military base then a public are) but this doesn't really describe it.
Since this area is not really public but neither really military I propose a new feature that can be used together with an military area.
Tags applied to nodes and areas.
"landuse" = "military" "military" = "abandoned" "accessible" = "yes/no"
Maybe a hatched military area
- Is this "abandoned" meant to be used for everything that could be "abandoned"? In the discription it only says something about railways. But if this tag is already being discussed/used/approved then we could close my propose and I will use this tag.--wer-ist-roger 17:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's meant for every abandoned feature. Descriptions mentions railways because railway=abandoned is well known tag so it should make difference between abandoned/disused more clear. --Jttt 19:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with User:Jttt that Proposed_features/Abandoned is a better alternative. For instance, it would allow differentiating between different types of abandoned military=* objects. Robx 16:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)