2013/12/13 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > 2013/12/13 Dan S <danstowell+...@gmail.com> >> >> "highway=pedestrian area, with [...] surface=paving_stones" seems to >> tag it pretty well to me. > > > > those tags aren't on the relation that represents the whole object though. > > >> >> >> > IMHO building would fit, what are the alternatives? man_made and >> > historic, >> > but historic would exclude similar constructions of recent make. >> > Man_made is >> > usually for more technical stuff, and in the past we used building even >> > for >> > ships (that don't move any more, with a restaurant inside). >> >> building doesn't make sense to me. It is "built" in the sense of being >> "man-made" or "architectural", but then so is a bridge, a fountain, >> etc. > > > > yes, as we don't have a tag for bridges either (all we use is an attribute > to a railway or highway that it is on a bridge, we don't actually map the > bridge itself, besides the bridge relation maybe), a building=bridge is fine > for me as well. >> >> Perhaps you could say what _aspect_ of the terrace you consider is not >> reflected in the tagging that Fabrizio describes? > > Actually it was himself who described that the terrace consists of several > parts: > > A highway=pedestrian area, with black and white tiles marked as > surface=paving_stones (that's the one with the terrace's balustrades) > An acquarium [4] > Grass areas > A gazebo construction > >> The photo you >> originally linked to shows a large and decorative pedestrian area, >> which is not difficult to map. > > it is not just a pedestrian area, it is also retaining walls, ceiling, a > pavillon, stairs, foundations, ... > http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/474/terrazzamascagniwj9.jpg > > >> The multipolygon collects together the >> geographic features that people presumably think of when they think of >> the name Terrazza Mascagni. So, if those things don't satisfy you, >> there must be some additional _quality_ that you have in mind? > > I think that there is clearly an "object" which is called "terrazza xy" > which consists of several parts, which is a built structure, and which is > more than just a pedestrian area. I think that who created the multipolygon > relation thought the same (hence he created the relation and attached the > name and wikipedia link to it).
I know you think it's clear, but it isn't clear to me what the "edges" of this "object" might be, which is why I asked you if you could say some more about this. If I understand you right, maybe one of the closest parallels in OSM tagging would be leisure=park? I'm not suggesting you should use this tag, just that maybe the object you have in mind has a similar ontological status. For example it's weird to me to think that "grass areas" or other buildings (mentioned above) would be considered a sub-part of a building=* object. But, for example, it's quite common for leisure=park objects to have grass areas and buildings inside. Dan _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
