> > IMHO we do indeed have no need for building=public / civic. if I were back in San Deigo, I might agree with that, but having come to Japan, there is a definite and immediately recognizable distinction of city buildings, *and* they are used quite heavily.
There is a known difference and a corresponding need for these facilities - at least the major buildings - to be treated above a standard office building. We recognize this with the amenity=townhall tag, and someone created building=civic for a reason, and I feel there should be a landuse to denote the complex's land differently than the standard commercial use building. > Both can be considered vague building types, but on a very generic level, I'd > encourage everyone to use more specific building tags. generically, yea they are both office buildings. I'm concerned primarily with the landuse to go with townhall complexes and other admin buildings. > 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). If we start getting into building=public, then yes, there is a lot of ambiguity, which is why I took your suggestion and narrowed it to landuse=public_admin, i'll drop the others from this point forward. For the vast majority of the *administration* buildings, either in California or Japan (and I imagine elsewhere =] ), there is absolutely no ambiguity. Everyone knows the building types I listed : >> public_admin would the city halls, courthouses, state, and capital >> buildings, embassies, etc. This is the most important one, IMO. (along with US "federal buildings") are definitely government operated. There is zero ambiguity with those. Maybe public is a bad word. how about landuse=civic_admin? > Generally I would not deduct any kind of ownership from the building type, > and neither from the landuse, and not even from access-tags ;-) You're right - those tags don't really show ownership. And I don't really care about ownership either - mostly purpose. We separate schools because we recognize that is a useful landuse to differentiate - like all the myriad of landuses - public or private, a park is a park, and a school is a school. But for this particular one (cuvic_admin), it is pretty obvious that it is a government operated building. I'm stating that there is a need for a landuse to show purpose for these heavily trafficked (known) civic buildings, just as we denote the others. They are more than an office building, just as a university is more than an office building complex with meeting rooms. The above is the main point of what I'm trying to say. > 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 If we get into building=public, yea. But landuse=civic_admin seems pretty cut and dry. Which government ( village / town / city / county-prefecture /state-province / region / federal) is is a question proprietor= could answer, but thats outside my discussion.. your suggestions and rebuttals have helped me think through my points and clarify my opinions. Thanks =D ありがとう (Arigatou) John PS: sorry to hijack leisure=events > cheers, > Martin > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
