I'm very interested to hear people's opinion on landuse=civic_admin It would be a landuse for townhalls and other capital buildings, Federal Buildings, DMV, courthouses, and other basic civic administrative offices where it is clearly a government building.
This is to have a matching landuse to go with building=civic or amenity=townhall, and to differentiate basic townhall complexes from office building complexes in OSM. Some countries do not require a visit to a federal building more than once every couple years (DMV, passport renewal), while some countries require visiting their local and regional government offices more than once a month for various paperwork duties and centralized government duties. I was having a good discussion with martin about this, and he feels we don't need a landuse=civic or even a building=civic. I'd like to hear other opinions, as well as his reply to this narrowing of civic to civic_admin: - Is it narrow enough in scope now, or does the idea of ownership still nix it for you? - What would be the most minimal solution for differentiating the landuses for these buildings - make a straight landuse=townhall for townhalls only, or is the whole idea of differentiation bad to you? Javbw > Javbw >> Martin >> 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
