This makes sense to me. In Nashville, Tennessee, USA, where I live, it is
becoming stylish for young professional people to live in downtown
apartments. These buildings usually have retail, restaurants, and/or
offices at ground level and perhaps a floor or two higher, then apartments
(flats) on higher floors. It makes sense to tag these buildings as
building=mixed.
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot
drive out hate; only love can do that." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
On August 31, 2015 7:23:02 AM Tod Fitch <t...@fitchdesign.com> wrote:
In my area there are a number of new buildings either recently completed or
still under construction that can only be described as a mixed use type:
The street level is steel and concrete construction and designed
specifically for retail. Above that are 3 to 5 wood framed floors
specifically designed as apartments. More recent satellite imagery on a
couple of buildings shows the upper residential floors to be typically
built around a center courtyard with a swimming pool (having observed
construction of the buildings, I am sure the swimming pools are above the
level of the retail shops, not at the ground level).
Completed, the look of the buildings is pretty recognizable from the street
with the fairly tall retail floor below and shorter floors of obvious
residential above. I guess it could be confused with a badly designed urban
hotel, but it sure would not be confused with an office building or
traditional apartment building.
So building=apartments obviously is not accurate. Nor is building=retail.
Apartments here are considered commercial so I could see a mapper using
building=commercial even though OSM would frown on that. It makes sense to
me to tag that building style as building=mixed.
Cheers,
Tod
On Aug 30, 2015, at 11:53 PM, Danijel Schorlemmer <o...@schorlemmer.net> wrote:
What about
building=apartments
building:use=residential;commercial (or retail)
building=mixed doesn't seem to me to be a useful building tag. The building
tag should describe the type of building, not its use.
Cheers
On Monday, August 31, 2015 10:26:27 AM Warin wrote:
On 31/08/2015 8:58 AM, John Willis wrote:
On Aug 31, 2015, at 12:05 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@gmail.com>
wrote:
uilding=commercial is quite suspect.
To me, there are 2 basic types of mixed use buildings.
mixed_use_urban
And
mixed_use_house
There are so many different combinations of retail, residential, hotel,
and commercial (and in come cases, attraction) That as long as there is
some kind of residential space (apartments/condos), then it would be
mixed_use_urban. This is especially true if the public facing part (the
bottom floor or the side towards the street) are non-residential use (a
business/shop/not parking).
snip
So i suggest those two building types to denote these two basic types of
mixed use.
I think it better to bite the bullet and start sub tagging correctly ...
thus for a retail mixed with apartments
building=mixed (or =yes etc)
building:retail=yes
building:apartment=yes
? More thoughts please...
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
