I am still struggling a bit about the key that should be used with the "events" value. Should I keep "leisure", as it is now, or change it to landuse? What are your opinions on this, please? Thanks for the help :).
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:06 PM, johnw <jo...@mac.com> wrote: > > > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
