> that’s many shops, crafts, offices and similar stuff. I think it’s already > common practice to include the grounds if any are present (for smaller ones > there won’t often be any grounds anyway, and most of them are probably mapped > as nodes anyway)
Disagree. It probably depends on amount/quantity of imagery and how keen people are to draw buildings -- and local mapping style (detailed or "big picture"). Personally, I'd map the hotel as its building when it's clear -- since, I would suggest that you can't actually "stay" in the grounds of a hotel -- you stay in a room in a hotel building. Similarly, I'd add the address on the building -- you can't typically check-in in a hotel's garden -- you have to go to reception. It would make /almost /more sense to me to have something like landuse=hotel (landuse=amenity:hotel) for the grounds. Then have amenity=hotel for the area where the principle service/amenity is provided (and if the main amenity is in a building, add building=yes). That would discriminate between the idea of the grounds and where the main service/amenity is provided. If the grounds are disjoint (split by highways) -- then keep them in a site relation. I guess keep the name/address on the main building/reception or on an entrance node -- adding it to the landuse (grounds) will just "weaken" routing (may make the rendering confusing too)? I think it would be good to see a few diagrams -- and a thought where "name" and "addr:" tags should ideally go too? And maybe a hint for renderers too :-) Cheers, Neil
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
