Re: [Tagging] Offices/non-shop businesses

2010-01-27 Thread John Smith
2010/1/28 John F. Eldredge : > Usually the name of the area is different from that of the offices within it. And the office buildings themselves can also be named... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listi

Re: [Tagging] Offices/non-shop businesses

2010-01-27 Thread John F. Eldredge
Usually the name of the area is different from that of the offices within it. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria -Original Message- From: Roy Wallace Date: Thu,

Re: [Tagging] Offices/non-shop businesses

2010-01-27 Thread John F. Eldredge
Where I live (Nashville, Tennessee, USA) there are numerous real estate developments made up entirely of offices, plus perhaps a restaurant or two for the office workers. Each such "office park" has a name, and could well be marked on a map, as well as marking the individual offices and other

Re: [Tagging] Offices/non-shop businesses

2010-01-27 Thread Roy Wallace
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:11 AM, John Smith wrote: > Land use can have a name > > Such and such industrial area etc True. Which makes it even more strange to assign it the name of an office (or business, etc.) that's within the area somewhere. ___ Tagg

Re: [Tagging] Offices/non-shop businesses

2010-01-27 Thread John Smith
Land use can have a name Such and such industrial area etc On 1/28/10, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: >> >> Out of curiosity, what's your intention in tagging these things? I get >> tags like "amenity=cafe" or "landuse=commercial, name=John's Softwar

Re: [Tagging] Offices/non-shop businesses

2010-01-27 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: >> >> Anyway, I like Liz's suggestion of tag first, then document and refine >> the scheme later. > > That's usually the method of the US police : shoot first and ask questions > later. More l

Re: [Tagging] Offices/non-shop businesses

2010-01-27 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Simone Saviolo wrote: > > Why not use business=* instead? Because that overlaps with a BUNCH of stuff that already has tags (e.g. shop=*, a lot of amenity=*'s, etc.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org h

Re: [Tagging] Offices/non-shop businesses

2010-01-27 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Matthias Julius wrote: > > Would you tag a business facility that is not really an office like a > machine shop or other production facility as office=* as well? I would think not. There may be cases that are in the grey area, and if you can think of any examples

Re: [Tagging] Offices/non-shop businesses

2010-01-27 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > Out of curiosity, what's your intention in tagging these things? I get > tags like "amenity=cafe" or "landuse=commercial, name=John's Software > Consulting", but what kind of applications might make use of knowing > that something is a sof

Re: [Tagging] Offices/non-shop businesses

2010-01-27 Thread Craig Wallace
On 27/01/2010 12:37, Matthias Julius wrote: > Emilie Laffray writes: >> >> What you have done looks good. I think it makes sense. > > Would you tag a business facility that is not really an office like a > machine shop or other production facility as office=* as well? I would use man_made=works

Re: [Tagging] Offices/non-shop businesses

2010-01-27 Thread Pieren
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Anyway, I like Liz's suggestion of tag first, then document and refine > the scheme later. > That's usually the method of the US police : shoot first and ask questions later. And as usual, many of us don't agree it is the correct method as

Re: [Tagging] Offices/non-shop businesses

2010-01-27 Thread Simone Saviolo
Why not use business=* instead? Simone 2010/1/27 Matthias Julius > Emilie Laffray writes: > > > 2010/1/27 Liz > > > >> I've started "office=" tags > >> and have put in something simple for what I have found > >> > >> office=accountant > >> office=solicitor > >> office=secretarial services > >

Re: [Tagging] Offices/non-shop businesses

2010-01-27 Thread Matthias Julius
Emilie Laffray writes: > 2010/1/27 Liz > >> I've started "office=" tags >> and have put in something simple for what I have found >> >> office=accountant >> office=solicitor >> office=secretarial services >> office=insurance >> >> I do find that some period of experimental tagging helps me sort

Re: [Tagging] Offices/non-shop businesses

2010-01-27 Thread Steve Bennett
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Woll Newall wrote: > A software development company > A company that provides office cleaning services > A call-centre > A company that designs widgets Out of curiosity, what's your intention in tagging these things? I get tags like "amenity=cafe" or "landuse=comm

Re: [Tagging] Offices/non-shop businesses

2010-01-27 Thread Emilie Laffray
2010/1/27 Liz > On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Woll Newall wrote: > > Does anyone have any suggestions for tagging business that are not > > shops? > > > > I took a look in the wiki and the mailing lists but couldn't see > > anything (which is a bit strange, I would have expected someone to > > have asked

Re: [Tagging] Offices/non-shop businesses

2010-01-27 Thread Roy Wallace
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Liz wrote: > > I've started "office=" tags ... > I'm not capable of putting together a > fully-fledged proposal for every sort of office I'm likely to find from the > start. Probably worth adding even a skeleton proposal to the wiki - at least it could then be fou

Re: [Tagging] Offices/non-shop businesses

2010-01-27 Thread Liz
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Woll Newall wrote: > Does anyone have any suggestions for tagging business that are not > shops? > > I took a look in the wiki and the mailing lists but couldn't see > anything (which is a bit strange, I would have expected someone to > have asked before - maybe I looked