Sorry if I didn't make myself clear in formulating the questions, I'll try to rephrase my inquiries again below.
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 8:09 PM ET Commands <etcomma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 20:34:52 +0200 > > From: bkil > > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in > > > > landuse=* seemed appropriate for most use cases I have encountered. Why > do > > we need to tag this on a building resolution? > Because landuse is for the entire property a building sits on, not the > building itself. > > You've described the difference between specifying the high level landuse in an area (that may be even a few blocks large) compared to the proposed micro-mapping on buildings. This is correct, but I would like to know the reason, meaning what advantage would such a resolution carry to the map consumer? > What data consumers did you have in mind? > Mapmakers. > > Being a mapmaker is a profession - they make maps for a given audience, for a given user group or a given task. Specifically, by data consumer we mean a downstream project that offers services based on OSM data, commonly in a slippy-map format, but sometimes aggregating statistics or joining data from various places, providing better insight or an index. For example, given the height of a building or the number of floors or its colour, there exist applications that can show a 3D map or even generate game scenery from real cities. By adding a proper digital elevation model, you could envision the use of this information for radio antenna link planning as well. Tagging the kind of sports played in a recreation centre or in a bar makes it available for map queries (where is the nearest place I could play pool at?). It's not a problem if there doesn't exist any data consumers for a new notation and you don't want to implement any either - I'm just curious whether you could come up with a plausible one to be created in the future. Reading this answer together with the next one makes me feel as if we should map this for the general renderer and "just because we can" (although we probably can't as per my other points), but I hope I'm reading you incorrectly. We could use line laser scanners to reproduce roads to submillimeter accuracy, but we don't do that - instead we take a model of a real life entity and represent it in a way that serves a given real life purpose like pedestrian and automotive navigation. Buildings have all kinds of imperfections (also accumulating with time), but we usually represent them as simple boxes (that mind you is already too detailed to the taste of many). Another drawback is that Mapnik already has too many colours and symbols by only showing the items of common interest, hence they had to hide a few already. I'd definitely not like to compromise even more items of common interest for occupancy on the general overview maps. I couldn't think of who would look at specialized maps only showing these, but as I've asked previously, please do share. > What common interest does this annotation serve? > It allows you to symbolize "occupied" buildings differently from > "unoccupied" ones. > > For example, people drawing their own back yards and their own garage there does not serve common interest, however if you add a roof (rain cover) that resides in public property where I could stand under if it is raining, it is of common interest. Another example is mapping your own water tap does not serve common interest, but at the same time mapping a water tap found on the street adds great value, as I could go there and have some water when I'm hiking in the summer when it's hot and I'm thirsty. Do people want to go inside an unoccupied building to seek shelter? Do people want to see these kind of buildings as an attraction? Do people want to stay away from occupied buildings due to possible danger? Should we search for survivors in occupied buildings after a disaster (not good enough because we should also search in residential buildings)? Does this help mobile cell phone base station planning (although I guest they simply look at their spatial network stats and be done with it)? In general, I really like features, new tags and micromapping, but please help me out a little here. I'd still need some convincing to see why this would be a useful addition. If it does not stand on its own as a feature, then as you've mentioned yourself, it's just a placeholder, a kind of FIXME that you expect others to map in more detail for it to be usable. See the answer I've given in the relevant section as to why I view this as a bad thing. > What is the verification criteria? Do I need to station next to the > My personal criteria is not meant to be that exact. For example, I can > You may have a given heuristic in your head right now, but you will need to provide a pseudo-algorithm and document it in detail in the wiki for others to follow. A tagging scheme is only useful if everybody is tagging the same way (or at least in a compatible way). It also happens with well documented, established tags that people engage in light "tagging wars" - each visiting the same place tags it in a slightly different, but still kind of valid way. Imagine how often this happened if you couldn't give an exact algorithm with your proposal. > Do you consider weekend houses occupied if they are only occupied > > intermittently or even seasonally? How do I verify this? > Note that my question was in reference to buildings people work in, not > live in. > > This goes against the definition most people understand, so even if $SUBJECT could be tagged, a better word should definitely be found to describe the phenomenon: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/occupy#Verb > 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. > I was not advocating the use of fixme's. Knowing that a building is > "occupied" is having more knowledge than simply knowing that a building > exists. One of the replies given to you has hinted at using note=* (which is for a different concept, leaving an advisory for the next editor, not to mark something as missing) in a fixme=* fashion. See my answer above regarding whether this is of common interest. If it is not, mapping these is equivalent to a fixme - expecting others to add real value to the map because we couldn't. It is not necessary to know everything about a feature in order > to map it. OpenStreetMap will never be "complete," because there will > always be more information that can be added to features. > > Exactly, and this is why we don't list the kind of information missing from a given feature. We don't add fixme=height, despite the fact that everything that can usually be mapped also has a height, - we simply add height=* when it is known and leave it out otherwise. True. But abandoned buildings are not the only buildings that people do > not work in. An example is storage buildings. > > Yes, I have included that too as an example in my last response, but I would still need the reason behind why we would need to map where potential storage buildings are located. Although, I think we could extend landuse to mark areas with mostly storage buildings if this is your real major use case, although you still haven't shared your use case with us.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
