On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 13:46, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@tutanota.com> wrote:
> 27 Sep 2019, 13:52 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > we don't have any tag indicating residential usage other > than building=house > > building:use=residential? > The status for that is "in use," which makes it a little questionable. It also raises the same duplication problem that others argue against: if building=church + amenity=place_of_worship + religion=christian is redundant then so is building:use=religious + amenity=place_of_worship + religion=christian, although building:use is optional so you probably wouldn't use it if it's not needed. But building:use gives no idea what the building looks like, and there are many buildings with distinct styles. I look at all but two of the Christian places of worship in my town and see churches and chapels. I look at two supermarkets and one ex-supermarket (currently being re-purposed) in my town and see buildings that were constructed to be supermarkets. I look at all the buildings on the two industrial estates and the business park and see industrial units (most are actually used for retail, but the building style is late-2000s industrial). I look at the three former warehouses adjacent to wharfs and they look like warehouses. "Turn left at what looks like a church, then right at what looks like a warehouse, carry on for a mile and what looks like a supermarket is on your left." are useful navigational instructions. "Turn left at a building that is being used residentially, then right at a building that has been split up into holiday accommodation, carry on for a mile and what is being used as a community centre and food bank is on your left." are less useful. YMMV, particularly if you're following navigational instructions that do not say what landmarks look like. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
