administrative boundaries are hilarious pile of special cases, so this would need to be reviewed carefully
but tagging described at openstreetmap/iD#5406 seems dangerous to me
as OpenStreetMap landuse= areas are for marking actual, de facto uses (not designated ones or administrative areas or anything like that) they can change without administrative boundaries changing
therefore mapping them on one object (or one geometry more generally) seems a mistake for me: later mapper may try to adjust (correctly!) landuse and change also (incorrectly!) boundary packaged with it
that seems bad even if both areas are exactly them same right now
(not detected right now, see say https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3557722 https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#loc=17/28.701371/77.166056&item=xxxx&level=1%2C2%2C3 )
(see some cases at https://qlever.dev/osm-planet/U8iham?exec=true )
administrative boundaries are hilarious pile of special cases, so this would need to be reviewed carefully
but tagging described at openstreetmap/iD#5406 seems dangerous to me
as OpenStreetMap
landuse=areas are for marking actual, de facto uses (not designated ones or administrative areas or anything like that) they can change without administrative boundaries changingtherefore mapping them on one object (or one geometry more generally) seems a mistake for me: later mapper may try to adjust (correctly!) landuse and change also (incorrectly!) boundary packaged with it
that seems bad even if both areas are exactly them same right now
(not detected right now, see say https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3557722 https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#loc=17/28.701371/77.166056&item=xxxx&level=1%2C2%2C3 )
(see some cases at https://qlever.dev/osm-planet/U8iham?exec=true )