2014-03-10 12:48 GMT+01:00 johnw <jo...@mac.com>: > otherwise we would have no need for building=civic / public.
IMHO we do indeed have no need for building=public / civic. Both can be considered vague building types, but on a very generic level, I'd encourage everyone to use more specific building tags. It is also not clear from building=public what exactly this indicates (publicly owned and used by a public entity but not generally accessible, publicly owned and open to the general public, privately owned but publicly operated and publicly accessible or even not, publicly owned and privately used). Generally I would not deduct any kind of ownership from the building type, and neither from the landuse, and not even from access-tags ;-) If we were to tag ownership (problematic, might have privacy implications, could be hard to verify with publicly accessible sources) a dedicated new tag should be used, e.g. proprietor, owner, property_of or similar. cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
