On 30/08/2015 9:07 PM, johnw wrote:
On Aug 30, 2015, at 4:55 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdre...@gmail.com <mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
indeed the buildings are just buildings (eventually with own names,
start dates and other attributes) , it's not them to put the name for
the "whole" complex on. But IMHO it's neither a landuse object, it's
an object with a different tag that defines it. We still need a tag
for gated communities? Fine, lets introduce one.
Why is that any different than a condo complex?
both are privately owned residences with a common management/ HOA
company, with access control on a well defined landuse.
Why is tagging a residential thing different in any way from a
industrial thing? why is the governmental stuff completely missing?
again. Confusing.
+1
Lay down a general category landuse. add a tag denoting it’s
particulars ( is it a works, a mall, a city hall complex, or a
apartment complex?)
Add the building=* areas (church, office, apartment, industrial
building) and the ref/name and all the other building crap.
lay down the roads and amenities inside the landuse.
if you want a tag to say “this residential area is a gated community”
to put on the landuse (like adding mall or works or whatever) that’s
fine. but my interest is standardizing and completing the landuse tag
usage.
Why have landuse at all if you don’t finish the categories it could be
used for?
Why have a landuse=* at all to denote area if you will deny its use
(arbitrarily) for some kinds of building complexes but use it on others?
It really is a big mystery for me - and the fundamental conflict I an
trying to solve - as standardizing the landuse=* tag would greatly
help the mapping of urban and suburban cities - as not only laying out
the primary landuse let you understand the city, and then adding the
exception building or amenity *more accurately labels and represents
the real world* - not to mention getting rid of so much ambiguity and
cruft on tagging things by their area (schools, hospitals, etc) -
because eventually, every single square meter of a city will have it’s
areas denotes - so why keep a scattershot and inconsistent method that
varies across so many things?
+1
The only point I think I see from Martin is tagging a landuse with a
name etc. But I don't see that as a problem at all ...
If an area tagged landuse=hospital has a name etc then why should that
not be put on it?
Same with a farm, industrial etc etc. Even a residential area - gated
would be a good example access=destination, name etc...
What other 'object' is to have this name .. that is associated with the
whole site? As the whole site can be mapped using landuse= I see no
problem in using it as such.
Same as a park - one name ... even with multiple buildings, sports
grounds ... the park has one name the other objects in it may have
others .. or even the same name. Not a problem.
======================
I think Martin 'see's' a problem with use in a GPS where searches are
conducted ... it is a 'problem' because there is no provision for
including landuse in that. But that can change.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
