[Tagging] Mapping pubs as full areas

Hi It's been pointed out to me the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpub states "Set a node or draw as an area along the building outline." This seems a bit restrictive & outdated, given the high zoom levels. Many pubs, especially those out of the cities, can be fairly la

Re: [Tagging] Mapping pubs as full areas

I would tag the building as what it is: house, hut, commercial, appartments or simply yes. Some of the buildings on the premises might be garages or sheds. Jo 2017-04-22 23:33 GMT+02:00 Dave F : > Hi > > It's been pointed out to me the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/ > wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpub

Re: [Tagging] Mapping pubs as full areas

sent from a phone > On 22. Apr 2017, at 23:33, Dave F wrote: > > Any buildings should be building=pub. -1, any particular pub building should be building=pub. Many pubs are not in particular pub buildings. The tag building is about the building, not about the use of the building cheers,

Re: [Tagging] Mapping pubs as full areas

The university's & school's buildings are tagged this way. More detailed than 'yes', but if you've the knowledge, the more detailed the better. On 22/04/2017 22:46, Jo wrote: I would tag the building as what it is: house, hut, commercial, appartments or simply yes. Some of the buildings on the

Re: [Tagging] Mapping pubs as full areas

sent from a phone > On 22. Apr 2017, at 23:50, Dave F wrote: > > The university's & school's buildings are tagged this way. More detailed than > 'yes', but if you've the knowledge, the more detailed the better. university and schools are quite different, as schools tend to consist of very

Re: [Tagging] Mapping pubs as full areas

"the more detailed the better", but anyway, the point I was trying to make was it's not tagged with amenity=pub etc. Back on topic: Is there any reason why the wiki shouldn't include this tagging scheme? On 22/04/2017 22:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 22. Apr 2017, a

[Tagging] unclassified_link and residential_link

Why exactly is there no established support for highway=residential_link and unclassified_link? Though not very common, occasionally these are needed, and there doesn't seem to be any common solution other than simply mapping the link as plain unclassified or residential. Has nobody proposed these

Re: [Tagging] Disaster response

Tom Pfeifer writes: > On 18.04.2017 02:24, Greg Troxel wrote: >> ... Having a functioning command and >> communication structure is key in modern emergency management. >> >> Or perhaps you see emergency management as different from people ready >> to provide direct assistance while operating at

Re: [Tagging] Landuse and Zoning and Licensing (CC BY SA)

Tom Hardy writes: > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 1:37:51 PM CDT Ralph Dell wrote: >> Although I don't often reply to these threads I am going to give >> it a go and hope to be constructive in the attempt. > >> If Tom Hardy you are suggesting that >> landuse:,... > > Not so much suggesting as ex

Re: [Tagging] unclassified_link and residential_link

This was discussed before, see for example http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/highway-residential-link-tt5859566.html Gerd Von: Albert Pundt Gesendet: Sonntag, 23. April 2017 01:37:01 An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Betreff: [Tagging] unclassifi

Re: [Tagging] Disaster response

sent from a phone > On 23. Apr 2017, at 02:35, Greg Troxel wrote: > > certainly the management hierarchy of anything doesn't > belong on the map clearly we are already doing it, e.g. admin_level, building=cathedral vs. church, etc. cheers, Martin