On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Marc Gemis <[email protected]> wrote:
> > But the building type of this McDonald restaurant [1] is so different > Until you brought them up, I couldn't think of any distinctly restaurantish building. Possibly because my nearest McDonald is 30 miles away and I haven't even been near enough to see it in over 10 years, so it's a dim memory. Industrial, yes: large, blocky with few windows. Supermarket, yes: large, blocky with many windows. Churches and chapels, yes (but not one of the churches near me, which was based on a design by a blind person using the only Lego pieces available 50 years ago in an entry for "ugliest building in Britain"). But then you get malls in many architectural styles. And Micky Ds have many different styles, with only the arches in common. Any distinctive frippery is purely cosmetic rather than structural and could easily be removed. All the restaurants near me are in converted houses or converted shops or converted small warehouses, with none of them built specifically for that purpose. So, with the possible exception of Micky D, none of them have a distinctive restaurant architecture. Simple test: remove the signage and whitewash the windows and what type of building is it? Churches, chapels, some barns (the style known in the UK as a Dutch barn, which is not what that term means in the US), supermarkets, industrial units, railway stations are all recognizable. Do the same with most restaurants and the best guess is "shop" or "house." Except for one of the restaurants near me in a converted warehouse with no windows at the front - remove the signage and the guess is going to be "warehouse." So building=restaurant (or whatever is used instead) seems to be blurring the distinction between type of building and purpose it is put to. I thought we were moving away from that. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
