+1 to define "landuse=civic_admin". It is very helpful to represent the outline when using type=site relation. Especially for more than 2 amenities shares 1 landuse.
e.g. in the case of 2 schools (junior high & high school) is in 1 landuse, in Japan. I think they must be represent as type=site relation, but currently the outline of the amenity is "amenity=school". In fact, the number of amenities is 2. Which is the "name" for outline "school"? Junior high? High school? I think "landuse=civic_admin" could resolve this situation. (site relation of node "amenity=school" & outline "landuse=civic_admin") Cheers. 2014-03-14 8:54 GMT+09:00 johnw <jo...@mac.com>: > 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 > -- Satoshi IIDA mail: nyamp...@gmail.com twitter: @nyampire
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
