Civic is what I suggested a few months ago. but where the line is drawn is up
for debate: what is included in this catch-all, and what isn’t.
I’ve tried arguing that each class should have their own catch-all landuse -
eg: we have residential/ retail/ industrial/ commericial - and hundreds of
different tags to properly define the the buildings that would fall into these
4 land uses.
I believe there is a good case for landuse=civic (name matches building=civic)
to cover the basic landuse of a myriad of public/civic/institutional/state
services that could be tagged with more specific amenity tags, or a new civic=•
subtag - either through point markers, building labels, or on the area with the
landuse.
Let the landuse denote class, and the other tags take care of the detail. just
like with residential / commercial / retail / industrial.
if you want to slice out a service (eg, school, hospital, airport), that’s
fine - but I think there is enough leftover to warrant another broad landuse
class.
John
> On Nov 4, 2014, at 4:13 AM, Tom Pfeifer <t.pfei...@computer.org> wrote:
>
> So far we have discussed pros and cons of
> landuse={governmental|public_administrative|civic}
>
> What about landuse=civil ?
>
> Oxford defines as attribute "of or relating to ordinary citizens and their
> concerns,
> as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters", and
> in law as "relating to private relations between members of a community;
> noncriminal"
>
> Thus it includes civil government, civil services, civil affairs, civil law,
> civil defence.
> Thus land occupied by tax/pension/immigration offices, ministries,
> parliaments and their subsidiaries.
>
> It would semantically exclude military, religious, judical/prison areas.
> By tag definition we can clarify that we want to exclude emergency services,
> hospitals, educational institutions which are not exclusively provided by the
> state.
>
> I'm not sure yet if it should include embassies, or not, as they refer to a
> foreign
> state, in contrast to 'civil' implying 'domestic, interior, home, national'.
> But
> as in amenity={hospital|school}, amenity=embassy can be applied to an area
> without hassle.
>
> tom
>
> John Willis wrote on 2014-10-07 23:47:
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Oct 7, 2014, at 10:08 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 2014-10-07 14:57 GMT+02:00 johnw :
>>>
>>> For example, I'm a foreign resident in Japan. I have to visit the
>>> regional offices to renew my visa every year or so. It's always a busy
>>> place people have to find. It's not at the city hall, the airport or a
>>> border - but it is a really important
>>> government office building that needs to labeled differently than a
>>> standard office building.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree that it would be desirable to have more detail on government
>>> offices, e.g. being able to distinguish the tax office from the immigration
>>> office etc. I'd see this under the office tag and not in "landuse".
>>
>> I don't want to add any detail through the landuse - beyond tagging their
>> land. A single tag that can be used to marking the land for all of these
>> services seems pretty straightforward.
>>
>>
>>> This is an enormous pile of work to do, as there are many different kind of
>>> these, and the detailed structure is different in every country.
>>
>> This is why a single landuse that is an umbrella for these services is an
>> easy solution - it separates out the government services, but leaves the
>> function tagging to other schemes, like landuse=retail tells you nothing
>> about what is sold - just that
>> "something" is sold there.
>>
>> I view these buildings as a completely separate class of buildings - so I
>> want a new major landuse class, just as an industrial plant and a mall are
>> big, but viewed and tagged with a different land use. A regional capital
>> building is a similar size, and
>> similarly in a different class than existing landuse values.
>>
>>
>> A seperate subtag, where all the different building definitions can be put
>> (beyond the ones already existing) or just more definitions thrown into
>> amenity - either way I'm okay with it - but they all need a distinct landuse
>> to sit on.
>>
>>
>>> On the other hand, the idea of having a wastewater plant, a fire station, a
>>> court and a federal ministry categorized the same civic landuse doesn't
>>> seem very appealing to me.
>>
>> If you want to slice out emergency services (police/fire) and judicial,
>> that's fine. Give them their own umbrella landuses, and let the existing
>> tagging scheme describe their function,
>>
>> The wastewater treatment plant is still industrial - as is the incinerator,
>> but the city's water board office, usually part of the city's main office,
>> would be civic. To me, civic is a shortening of civic administration.
>>
>> We recognize places that provide services to citizens or offices of those
>> services directly with separate tags - there are tags for community centers,
>> rec centers, city halls, dmvs, and other places that the public visit
>> regularly that are part of the
>> civil government (not military) - but there is no good landuse for them, as
>> there is for industrial/retail/commercial. There are several classes of
>> buildings still without seperate tags - ones that get their own label on the
>> map, a guidepost on the road,
>> and are visited by the public as frequently as a trip to city hall - but no
>> tag labels them yet (tax/pension/immigration/etc). I want to show their
>> class through a landuse, and their function with some other tag.
>>
>>> I believe that "civic" might be too generic (but maybe I just don't
>>> understand this right, hence the question for what is included and
>>> excluded).
>>>
>>
>> Questions always help me clarify my thinking, and understand yours as well.
>> Thank you for the questions. My idea right now is an umbrella landuse for
>> these offices/services that don't fit in commercial, and a separate
>> subtag/additional amenity tags for
>> function, however people want to do that.
>>
>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Martin
>>
>> Javbw
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
