The only thing I got from your talk was that you don't like manmade landuses, or every facility you have ever mapped is a single use, single purpose shop, always separated from the other - never in a shared space that is named something differently.
If you have one named facility - a shopping center made of 4 different retail buildings, you can't put a supermarket tag on the area. There is no building named "abc shopping center" - the complex's landuse is named that, and the buildings are the individual shops. To get into the fact that it is leased and whatnot starts to get into ownership, and it is not very representative of the situation. In this way, the mall landuse is showing general purpose and use - commerce through sales - and the shops themselves contain name data and purpose of the individual buildings. If there was a small playground, or a building that was a church in the complex (they have a space in the mall or shopping center, which is common) then the building would have the POW tag, but the main purpose of the facility - a shopping center - is retail sales. If I have a giant church complex, using a real life example - a large church grounds, fenced off - maybe 4 acres. 1/3 of the grounds is parking. A very large 6 story tall chapel, visible from several kilometers away. It is the POW for the facility, but only takes up maybe 20% of the land. There is a small office adjacent, a large multipurpose meeting hall and kitchen, and a small 2 story building with 6 rooms - the lower floor is a preschool operated by the church, the other is for Sunday school, storage, and other meeting rooms. There is a small playground as well. There is a courtyard in the center, and a large lawn, and a communications tower disguised as a religious tower, since it is on a hill. That is a single place with a single sign out front - a single facility, hence a single landuse - and a vast majority of the people come to visit the chapel. The rest is supporting amenities for the worshippers at the church - but do you worship on a playground? In the parking lot? On the grass? No, you go to the chapel for services. Religious landuse is not about saying that the ground is religious, any more than saying landuse=retail is land that is for sale - it is for the land dedicated to a facility where people worship - just as retail is where people sell, and residential is an area where people reside - but there still is a building called "a house" and a "shop". There ARE tiny shops, tiny churches, and whatnot that putting the POW tag on the land, or putting shop on the land would be acceptable - but that system doesn't scale *whatsoever* to handle large multipurpose or multi-user complexes - and the system of landuse for the land, and then building and amenity tags on the various disparate things inside the area was created and used extensively in OSM to deal with conveying this complexity properly - and fits with the continuing trend of micro-mapping in OSM. Javbw > On Feb 18, 2015, at 7:12 AM, fly <lowfligh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> Am 17.02.2015 um 22:40 schrieb Tom Pfeifer: >> Andreas Goss wrote on 2015-02-17 22:02: >>> If people really continute to use this tag I will use it for everything >>> run by the chatholic church in Germany, after all they are the largest >>> private land owner... Then they can have fun with their "church yards". >> >> the tag is about land_use_, not land_ownership_ >> AFAIK we do not want to tag ownership in OSM. > > and religious is no land use, exactly. > >> fly wrote on 2015-02-17 22:14: >>> I still do not understand, why we can not use religion=* without any >>> landuse. >> >> on which area description? > > I have no problem to additionally add amenity=place_of_worship or > appropriate tag to the area. The same is true for supermarket with there > own area including parking. No problem to tag the whole area > shop=supermarket. For buildings we have building=*. > > Maybe we just lack of a proper tag to describe the area but > landuse=religious is a poor answer. > > Anyway, we probably need more of the primary tags anyway as people look > at things from different perspectives and we already have the same > scenario with landuse=forest vs natural=woods vs land_cover=tree. > >>> As far as I understand there can be only one landuse but neither the >>> proposal nor the wiki page really faces the problem especially regarding >>> deprecating other landuse like cemetery without offering a replacement. >> >> it is probably for historic reasons that cemetery slipped into the >> landuse category. It would be logical to migrate it to amenities, such >> as graveyard. > > I understand landuse=cementry as a land use but not religious. Anyway we > are using amenity=hospital for the whole area without any use of landuse. > > Cheers > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
