On 04-04-19 13:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > why not overlap the amenity=school (one for each school, including the > grounds)? This allows to show that it is a common campus, while > otherwise you only associate the buildings with the school and make no > statement about the campus, other than it is used by some (undefined) > school. It also leads to better results in search (shows the whole > school area), without any modification of the existing system. You could > exclude those buildings from the area which are not part of the specific > school.
This doesn't solve the common case of the shared campus or location having a shared name, as in the French example I've linked to. A common case in my experience; I have a named campus in my hometown that houses a university, a college, and a research institute — each a distinct organisation. The campus name is used in signage. The association of school with campus can be deduced from the amenity point/way lying inside the landuse area. This is the same as amenity=place_of_worship inside a landuse=religuous. I think the school amenity may also be linked to its grounds via a relation, but that would go beyond the scope of this proposal. Overlapping amenity areas also seem to go against the grain of most OSM tagging solutions. > landuse=school also conflicts with situations where a school is inside > an administration (or other) building, but these may be few. In these cases the current situation remains: using a node (or a way for part of a building) for the amenity. The landuse for such a place might eventually be one of those proposed in the landuse=civic proposal. I think this is mostly an edge case though. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
