By the way, don't get me wrong, it is a perfectly valid desire to tag these. $SUBJECT has occurred to me as well in the past. In such cases, I looked for the full address, other text on mailboxes, on the building itself, on the fence and in WLAN and PAN in the air and tried to research these on the net. Based on the result, I can usually add a few POI's or companies there and even adjust the surrounding landuse. If nothing turns up, it is probably not a building of public interest.
You might also consider asking a resident, although if this is the only way to verify, it may not scale well on the long term and it is prone to change. I consider this a constructive alternative approach to recommending mass tagging of "something is here but I don't know what". On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 8:34 PM bkil <bkil.hu...@gmail.com> wrote: > I can see what maintenance burden this notation could bring, but I would > need more information to see what we could gain from it. > > landuse=* seemed appropriate for most use cases I have encountered. Why do > we need to tag this on a building resolution? > > What data consumers did you have in mind? > > What common interest does this annotation serve? > > What is the verification criteria? Do I need to station next to the > building in working hours for a given amount of time and declare it > occupied if I see any person entering or leaving, and mark it unoccupied > otherwise? Or is it enough if I see indirect indications, such as open > windows (what is they are motorized and remote controlled), lighting (some > leave it always on for security)? > > Is it enough if I see a resident through the window? How do I know if the > person is not merely a guard or an intermittent maintenance personal? > > If a storage building complex is only occupied by a guard (supervised=* / > surveillance:type=guard), do you consider it occupied? > > Do you consider weekend houses occupied if they are only occupied > intermittently or even seasonally? How do I verify this? > > Note that we usually do not add fixme kind of tagging for the sole purpose > of marking the absence of regular information, as by definition, a blank > map is missing an infinite amount of information and we would definitely > not like to store so many fixme's. > > Although I acknowledge it is sometimes easy to distinguish abandoned > buildings, especially if it is missing furniture, doors or windows, but we > have life cycles for that. > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:40 PM Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> sent from a phone >> >> > On 23. May 2019, at 19:05, marc marc <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better >> > yes can be improved when you'll known that's the current use, >> > if it not the same as what is excepted for this building look >> >> >> +1, seems to reflect the amount of knowledge. >> The combination of building=* with building:use=no might be interesting >> as well >> >> Cheers, Martin >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
