2014-07-24 1:01 GMT+02:00 johnw <jo...@mac.com>: > My Main question is on my understanding of the landuse+building tagging > scheme. >
I don't think there is a 1:1 relationship. "building" describes the type of the building, while landuse the _use_ of the land. Just yesterday evening I saw a mosque in the ground floor of a residential building and I have seen a lot of "churches" in similar settings (which I surely won't tag as building=church but they get an amenity=place_of_worship). In Berlin there is a museum inside a train station. IMHO this is still a building=train_station (some parts, there are also extensions which are building=storage/warehouse) even if it was used only from 1846-1884 as such. see http://www.smb.museum/en/museums-and-institutions/hamburger-bahnhof/home.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_Bahnhof Another example would be a former public swimming pool which is now used as a hackspace and eventspace: http://www.stattbad.net/info/about/location Or a church which now houses a library after having been desecrated. these are some more extreme examples, but there are lots of others similar cases. In some instances the mapper might decide that the transformation the building underwent was so complete that the building type has changed with the new use, but in others it might have been intentional to keep structure and references to the former use. > Because OSM tags have grown organically, there are rough systems for > tagging objects, but there seems to be a clash of those systems when it > comes to mapping area+building for common town building types. > yes, documentation of building types is poor, but this is also due to the plurality of building types, there are lots of them. > > > So (1), as a noob tagger, I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding > something when it comes to mapping houses, businesses, industrial, etc - > because I see landuse categories as a great way to map the usable land the > building and it's **related** amenities. > something is generally related (spatially), when the areas overlap or one is inside the other. You do not need tags for this. > > Since I am having trouble conveying this to you, I made a chart. it is a > little big (120KB) to be on the mailing list, so I put it online. > http://www.javbw.com/chart.png > I understand the intention of this chart, but I believe it is oversimplistic and not useful for practical mapping. "house" is a quite generic type, e.g. I'd go for something more specific like "detached_house", "terraced_house" etc., or rather than building=industrial there could be "production_hall", "warehouse" etc. (which are still quite generic types and might merit subtagging, e.g. "packing_warehouse"). Inside an industrial area you'll often find different typologies of industrial buildings (and also commercial buildings and maybe even residential buildings like a villa for the owner). > > > I want to simplify tagging areas and buildings by having enough landuse > tags to cover the major types > agreed, there are some missing values, mostly these are tags that would cover areas that are already covered by a tag that is in a different namespace than "landuse" (i.e. introducing those tags would merely duplicate the existing information but might simplify evaluation of the data/simple mid zoom renderings etc.). E.g. we might want something for highly mixed spaces like you can find them in the centre of traditional european cities (mixed between residential, commercial, retail, education, culture, religion, health but typically not industrial). > Most beginning mappers aren't going to be in JOSM or Potlach, but use iD > and the wiki (me currently) > Yes, tagging using presets bears generally the problem that you have to get the meaning of a tag from one word and that you have to trust in the interpretations that the makers of your editor / preset have applied. Getting to know the basic keys and values and then search (and have a look at taginfo) seems like a viable but timeconsuming solution, and I agree that the wiki is not always easy to read (you'd have to look also on the history for every article, due to wikifiddling) and I am sure there are lots of inconsistencies no matter how hard we try... > - and the arbitrariness of the tagging system documented in the wiki is > very difficult to internalize, so you can map without constant reference to > the wiki to find out what different tagging schema this area+building has > vs all the rest (townhall vs a house vs a school are all completely > different for no **necessary** reason). > they are not different at all: building=detached_house building=townhall building=school they are completely consistent ;-) Now for the functions: amenity=townhall amenity=school no tag for a private residence (not mapped due to privacy concerns) also completely consistent. cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
