> On Feb 13, 2015, at 11:51 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> 2015-01-03 16:28 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić <jan...@gmail.com
> <mailto:jan...@gmail.com>>:
> Landuse=religious AFAIK started being used for land that is owned by a
> religious entity, and in it there would be schools, playgrounds, priest
> living grounds, and so on. Then this was disputed
>
>
>
> +1, "religious" really isn't a _landuse_ in these cases, they seem perfect
> examples where a tag religion=* would do the trick and no new tag would be
> needed.
I’m still not understanding the confusion around the tag. If I took out the
word “religious” and “religious entity” out of the example and put in 'retail'
and ‘mall owner’ - there would be no problem putting landuse=retail on the site
of a mall - which is well defined and easily mapped - and tagging amenities of
the ground - AKA parking, gardens, playground, buildings, sheds, etc. We can
have churches tagged as a shop in a retail landuse - if there is a small shop
stuck in the corner of a churchyard (and the churchyard is well defined), why
is having the shop labeled remotely a problem? it’s simply part of the church
facility grounds.
While there are edge cases - usually where mapping the grounds are difficult -
there are probably hundreds of thousands of religious facilities that have well
defined and easily mapped grounds, which include amenities for use by the
patrons, or even the public.
Hospitals have easily defined grounds, and often have kids areas, shops - there
are convenience stores in most large hospitals in Japan - but we would never
exclude their presence from the hospital landuse.
Similarly, Office buildings often have courtyards, outdoor speaking areas, and
other large, not directly "office" related areas - but the 6 building campus at
1 infinite loop for Apple in Cupertino wouldn’t have only the 6 buildings
tagged as commercial - the parking, courtyrd, the speaking area, the company
store, and support facilities are all part of “Apple Campus 1” - a single
commercial landuse.
The landuse many religious places occupy is the grounds of the facility, and
the shape and outline of the grounds are often well defined - and more
importantly - well known to the people in the community. It is common to map
temple grounds here in Japan - not only the buildings themselves, but the
grounds they occupy, which is very easy to do with good imagery.
The amenities - graveyards, gardens, parking, temples, belltowers, statures,
and occasionally parks, playgrounds, and the home of the Monk(s) are considered
to be “part of the temple facilities” Some may have daycare or preschool
facilities - usually the larger, established “schools” then fall under the
school landuse and the church is the operator - but the church itself takes up
space - usually separate (and not necessarily adjacent) space - it is not a
school. It is not a park. it is not a retail or commercial establishment. It is
a religious facility. and as with any facility complex, there are amenities on
the site of the facility. Why is having them included in a single “religious
grounds” landuse not desired? Every basic landuse type needs a landuse tag.
Having amenity define the landuse (as with hospital and school) was a mistake,
but one that cannot be rectified now. Every major building complex type
deserves a landuse tag - otherwise it is confusing as hell to beginning mappers
- and makes creating future landuse tags harder - hospital is excluded - what
about fire stations? police stations?
Having a landuse for “religion” seems simple to understand, simple to
implement, and simple to parse when thinking of the facility as a single thing
with many amenities - like a mall, office complex, or another large
establishment that handles lots of visitors visitors and offers them amenities.
Javbw.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
