Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key
> Please do not mass modify tags of objects, especially those where the > locals have told you that they're meaningful. I prefer to avoid step with irritated locals, that is why I am asking here before doing anything. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Marking dual carriageways
It depends on what map is supposed to display. In this case I want a city-wide map with oneway roads that are potential candidates for designating them as contraflow for bicycles (all oneway roads without oneway:bicycle=no that are not a dual carriageways). I implemented it using dual_carriageway=yes for identification of dual carriageways in https://github.com/mkoniecz/bicycle_map_of_Krakow/commit/e10ecfb8d54d9c6e6e7f6e327647017a1c656a5c I use also some other hints and together it is almost 100% effective (still some roads where contraflow would be completely unreasonable are marked, like http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.05948&mlon=19.97578#map=18/50.05948/19.97578 ) but in general it is nearly 100% effective without any postprocessing. 2014-07-17 21:55 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson : > How is this, in any way, incorrect rendering, particularly at higher zoom > levels? > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> Road itself is not oneway as it has two one-way carriageways in opposite >> directions. Carriageways are mapped in OSM as separate one-way ways. >> >> >> 2014-07-10 21:32 GMT+02:00 John F. Eldredge : >> >> I am confused. You state that the road is divided into two carriageways, >>> that neither carriageway is one-way, and also that each carriageway is >>> one-way. How can a given carriageway be both one-way and not one-way at >>> the same time? >>> >>> >>> On July 10, 2014 5:20:16 AM CDT, Mateusz Konieczny >>> wrote: >>> > I am thinking about marking tagging roads with separate carriageways. >>> > I >>> > want to create map with oneway roads, but in OSM data roads with >>> > separate >>> > carriageways that are not oneway are frequently represented as >>> > separate >>> > ways, both tagged as oneway. >>> > >>> > Adding tag that that would describe way as part of dual carriageway, >>> > with >>> > twin road leading in opposite direction would allow to solve this >>> > problem. >>> > >>> > I am currently thinking about good name for this tag and whatever >>> > there is >>> > possibly to achieve this result solely by processing OSM data >>> > (processing >>> > is probably necessary anyway to catch cases like >>> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/182138211 ). >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> > >>> > ___ >>> > Tagging mailing list >>> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >>> -- >>> John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com >>> "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate >>> cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." >>> Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. >>> >>> ___ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] British English Spelling shop=jewelry
I still think shop=jewelry shouldn't be changed, because it seems well-established, so it simply isn't worth it to change them. It might be some inconsistency, but it's a really small one. About vending=news_papers, personally I don't object to changing it, but preferably make this deprecation explicit on the wiki by mentioning how it was tagged before. 2014-07-17 5:39 GMT-03:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > > > Am 16/lug/2014 um 21:37 schrieb Andreas Goss : > > > > The differences already exist, no matter what we choose. > > > +1, all spellings in British is making life easier for everybody on the > long run (besides the Americans maybe, but also for them clear rules are > easier than an arbitrary mix). > > FWIW this is not a new rule but a rule from the beginning so these > misspelled tags shouldn't have been introduced at first > > 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
Re: [Tagging] shop=scuba_diving and shop=dive
shop=scuba_diving seems like the kind of thing you can add without looking at the wiki, so I think that's a plus though that's the kind of thing you are better off asking the users that introduced this tag, so they can tell whether there is a difference between those two. shop=dive seems like a fusion of shop=scuba_diving and amenity=scuba_diving_center 2014-07-17 18:28 GMT-03:00 Andreas Goss : > Sorry, just saw that sport=scuba_diving is pretty well established, so > maybe we should use shop=scuba_diving. What do you think? > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dscuba_diving > > __ > openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 > wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] shop=scuba_diving and shop=dive
Sorry, just saw that sport=scuba_diving is pretty well established, so maybe we should use shop=scuba_diving. What do you think? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dscuba_diving __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] shop=scuba_diving and shop=dive
Hi, is there are reason to have both shop=dive and shop=scuba_diving? Seens to be the same: Dive even says "A dive shop or dive center is the base location where sports divers usually start scuba diving(!). It is normally a shop selling diving equipment equipped with a gas compressor to fill the cylinders." They are even both on map features. scuba_diving was just added a few months ago to the wiki while diving seems to data back a lot further. Andi __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Marking dual carriageways
How is this, in any way, incorrect rendering, particularly at higher zoom levels? On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Road itself is not oneway as it has two one-way carriageways in opposite > directions. Carriageways are mapped in OSM as separate one-way ways. > > > 2014-07-10 21:32 GMT+02:00 John F. Eldredge : > > I am confused. You state that the road is divided into two carriageways, >> that neither carriageway is one-way, and also that each carriageway is >> one-way. How can a given carriageway be both one-way and not one-way at >> the same time? >> >> >> On July 10, 2014 5:20:16 AM CDT, Mateusz Konieczny >> wrote: >> > I am thinking about marking tagging roads with separate carriageways. >> > I >> > want to create map with oneway roads, but in OSM data roads with >> > separate >> > carriageways that are not oneway are frequently represented as >> > separate >> > ways, both tagged as oneway. >> > >> > Adding tag that that would describe way as part of dual carriageway, >> > with >> > twin road leading in opposite direction would allow to solve this >> > problem. >> > >> > I am currently thinking about good name for this tag and whatever >> > there is >> > possibly to achieve this result solely by processing OSM data >> > (processing >> > is probably necessary anyway to catch cases like >> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/182138211 ). >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ___ >> > Tagging mailing list >> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> -- >> John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com >> "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot >> drive out hate; only love can do that." >> Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Marking dual carriageways
Sounds like an area encompassing all involving "landuse=highway" couldn't hurt, either. On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > I am thinking about marking tagging roads with separate carriageways. I > want to create map with oneway roads, but in OSM data roads with separate > carriageways that are not oneway are frequently represented as separate > ways, both tagged as oneway. > > Adding tag that that would describe way as part of dual carriageway, with > twin road leading in opposite direction would allow to solve this problem. > > I am currently thinking about good name for this tag and whatever there is > possibly to achieve this result solely by processing OSM data (processing > is probably necessary anyway to catch cases like > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/182138211 ). > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:21 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > also shop=fish might be used for pets (fish only)? I wouldn't think so, but that's just me. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?
> Am 17/lug/2014 um 17:16 schrieb Brad Neuhauser : > > put an operator and/or religion tag on other mapped features in the area, +1, not necessarily "on other features", you could try to find a tag that describes the area as a whole, but a religion and operator tag will express the basic detail. cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?
Schools are an interesting case for comparison, as on the surface they seem similar. But here's where I see the distinction: many times the entire school grounds is used for school activities (including things like building, playground, sports pitch, parking, etc). But with place of worship, it is usually just one area of a grounds (often a building) that is used for worship. Yet, other activities related to that religious community may take place in the grounds, and that's what we're trying to figure out here. Maybe it's the phrasing of "place of worship" that's part of the issue--it's very specific! Martin brought up amenity=monastery--it sounds like that might work for John's case in Japan. But there are other cases. To take an extreme example, some churches in the US have large "campuses". This one near Memphis is bigger than some schools, and includes a gym and baseball fields! http://tinyurl.com/ns6or8m What to do here? I would say that it doesn't make sense to tag the whole area as place of worship, that's factually incorrect. So, if people are opposed to landuse=religious, what would you recommend for a case like this? The only other option I can think of might be to put an operator and/or religion tag on other mapped features in the area, but that seems less than ideal. Brad On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > Am 17/lug/2014 um 10:46 schrieb Pieren : > > > > The problem is that amenity=place_of_worship is > > always rendered as a building even when it could be a bigger area > > (like for schools). > > > In the Christian religion (which is where I happen to map, don't know > about other religions) I use this tag on the sacred ground, which might > extend to the churchyard, an oratory, or some outdoor space around the > church, but often wouldn't comprise a kindergarten or some administration > facility of the church, so I don't think place of worship can be used for > this context. For monasteries I use amenity=monastery and put pow only on > the churches and chapels... > > Agree that place of worship shouldn't render as a building > > 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
Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?
> Am 17/lug/2014 um 10:46 schrieb Pieren : > > The problem is that amenity=place_of_worship is > always rendered as a building even when it could be a bigger area > (like for schools). In the Christian religion (which is where I happen to map, don't know about other religions) I use this tag on the sacred ground, which might extend to the churchyard, an oratory, or some outdoor space around the church, but often wouldn't comprise a kindergarten or some administration facility of the church, so I don't think place of worship can be used for this context. For monasteries I use amenity=monastery and put pow only on the churches and chapels... Agree that place of worship shouldn't render as a building cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?
> Am 17/lug/2014 um 11:08 schrieb johnw : > > Describing other grounds - education, retail, industrial, etc all fall under > landuse. I don't see it like that. landuse should be the landuse, for facilities you should use a distinct tag, e.g. man_made=works office=* shop=* or amenity=school etc. There can/will be some overlap but the name should go in the facility/feature cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?
For me the difference between bus routes (or walking routes, or cycling routes or . routes) and a collection of McD locations, represented in OSM by POIs (or buildings), is that you can traverse a specific route only by using the roads and paths along that route but you can navigate any way you want (within reason) to get to a specific location. For me they are evidently different in nature. We are not talking about collecting all bus stops in a city independent of the routing (that would be a simple collection). It is helpful to be able to put the routes on a map. And since they are fixed and cannot be calculated at run time by a navigator, I do not see how else we can map routes conveniently in OSM. I already mentioned the reason we do not want to put ALL the roads/paths for a cyclenode network in a single relation: cyclenode networks are large (some are very big indeed). It becomes difficult to manage these with tools we have available. So we just map the routes between cyclenodes (or for busses between the two end points of a route). Putting the marked routes in route relations and putting those relations in a network relation simply reflects reality (they all belong in the same cyclenode network). The same is true for individual parts of a long-distance walking route. Those long-distance routes which have all the ways in a single relation are painful to manage with our current tools (I am thinking of mappers rather than consumers). A site like Lonvia hiking works very well with the current solution with relations and "super-relations". If it ain't bust, don't fix it. Please. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- From: Pieren Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 10:38 AM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ? If you don't understand that a collection of "all bus routes from operator XYZ in my city" is not different than a collection of "all McDonald's restaurants in my town", then I cannot argue any more. And if we tolerate the first, we cannot refuse the second. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?
> Still not convinced about landuse=religious (could be owner_type=religious). On Jul 17, 2014, at 5:32 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > >> Am 16/lug/2014 um 23:43 schrieb John Willis : >> >> It is all a single place, operated by the monks and priests that live or >> work there. For the past 1100 years (it was founded around 900ad). It all >> has a single outer wall or barrier, and is considered the "Naritasan temple >> grounds" > > > so maybe the tag for the whole facility could be temple_grounds (not sure for > the key, could be amenity for instance)? Additionally religion=* and > denomination tags, name etc. > Describing other grounds - education, retail, industrial, etc all fall under landuse. I don't see why religious institutions would be excepted, as the purpose of the land and the facilities on it (overall) are religious, certainly not commercial or retail. > Still not convinced about landuse=religious (could be owner_type=religious). > I understand, but it is really hard for me to see how religious institutions fit under the existing big Retail/Industrial/Residential/Commercial landuses, similar with my lng thread a bout landuse=civic. I would tag a curch grounds as landuse religious, and the building with the place_of_worship tag, just like landuse=retail and building=shop I really like the idea of generic landuse tags with specific building tags, and I've been trying to get landuses to filling the 2 or 3 missing major landuse types [some feel] are missing. Landuse=religion fills one of those. We have enough tags to fill out the detail on the rest. Maybe it's more about missing consistency than anything. Javbw > 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
Re: [Tagging] British English Spelling shop=jewelry
> Am 16/lug/2014 um 21:37 schrieb Andreas Goss : > > The differences already exist, no matter what we choose. +1, all spellings in British is making life easier for everybody on the long run (besides the Americans maybe, but also for them clear rules are easier than an arbitrary mix). FWIW this is not a new rule but a rule from the beginning so these misspelled tags shouldn't have been introduced at first cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?
> Would you tag all those (e.g. the preschool) with landuse=industrial if the > site was owned and operated by Mercedes Benz? I might, if it is a single building in the center of a sheet metal stamping plant, or a room in the office building onsite. Just as we tag shops at an airport terminal. It isn't landuse=retail if it's a burger Joint jammed in next to gate 27. It's an amenity of the larger facility. But the Retail mall adjacent to the terminal (or the train station) is it's own landuse, IMHO. Conversely, if it is a school across the street from the plant, or where access to the land use is even somewhat independent from the Assembly factory or it isn't an amenity of the larger office complex, I would tag it as it's own landuse, and then with operator. Thanks for reminding me about the operator tag, I keep forgetting it. Javbw On Jul 17, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > >> Am 17/lug/2014 um 09:35 schrieb johnw : >> >> My Parent's presbyterian Church in San Diego has a very large chapel >> building, a religious pre-school & kindergarten, a meeting hall, the church >> office building, and a playground for the preschool. There is one sign and >> one driveway on the street for the whole thing. > > > I'd definitely add religion=christian and denomination=* to all those > features, as well as operator=* > > Would you tag all those (e.g. the preschool) with landuse=industrial if the > site was owned and operated by Mercedes Benz? > > 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
Re: [Tagging] British English Spelling shop=jewelry
> Am 16/lug/2014 um 23:22 schrieb John Packer : > > it seems some osm gardeners changed objects that previously had > vending=newspapers (for example [1]), so the actual numbers are skewed welcome to OSM, all numbers are skewed ;-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?
> Am 17/lug/2014 um 10:38 schrieb Pieren : > > If you don't understand that a collection of "all bus routes from > operator XYZ in my city" is not different bus routes in the same network can be operated by different bus companies, but I agree in so far as there could be a network tag with the network name to substitute the relations. This might somehow conflict with established network=lcn nwn etc. (bad tags btw, as they are abbreviated and you need the wiki to make sense if them) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I'm surprised about this discussion. Think that amenity=place_of_worship has to be treated like amenity=school. Nobody is asking to create a landuse=school because it is rendered properly on the main osm style. The problem is that amenity=place_of_worship is always rendered as a building even when it could be a bigger area (like for schools). Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Relations are not categories" excepted for "type=network" ?
If you don't understand that a collection of "all bus routes from operator XYZ in my city" is not different than a collection of "all McDonald's restaurants in my town", then I cannot argue any more. And if we tolerate the first, we cannot refuse the second. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] British English Spelling shop=jewelry
> Am 16/lug/2014 um 20:12 schrieb John Packer : > > See the comments about the abrupt change of power=sub_station to > power=substation that was a change in meaning and in spelling IIRR cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?
> Am 16/lug/2014 um 23:43 schrieb John Willis : > > It is all a single place, operated by the monks and priests that live or work > there. For the past 1100 years (it was founded around 900ad). It all has a > single outer wall or barrier, and is considered the "Naritasan temple grounds" so maybe the tag for the whole facility could be temple_grounds (not sure for the key, could be amenity for instance)? Additionally religion=* and denomination tags, name etc. Still not convinced about landuse=religious (could be owner_type=religious). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?
> Am 17/lug/2014 um 09:35 schrieb johnw : > > My Parent's presbyterian Church in San Diego has a very large chapel > building, a religious pre-school & kindergarten, a meeting hall, the church > office building, and a playground for the preschool. There is one sign and > one driveway on the street for the whole thing. I'd definitely add religion=christian and denomination=* to all those features, as well as operator=* Would you tag all those (e.g. the preschool) with landuse=industrial if the site was owned and operated by Mercedes Benz? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key
> Am 16/lug/2014 um 21:11 schrieb Serge Wroclawski : > > Please do not mass modify tags of objects, especially those where the > locals have told you that they're meaningful. +1, for all cases where the modification goes beyond a simple typo. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?
On Jul 17, 2014, at 7:20 AM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > landuse=japanese_temple_grounds, or landuse=buddhist_temple_grounds, or maybe > something nicer. My Parent's presbyterian Church in San Diego has a very large chapel building, a religious pre-school & kindergarten, a meeting hall, the church office building, and a playground for the preschool. There is one sign and one driveway on the street for the whole thing. Covering the church offices, the meeting hall and the Pre-school with land-use "place of worship" is wrong. It is land-use religious (they are not a company), and the chapel itself is a place of worship, The offices are tagged a offices, the school tagged as a kindergarten, playground, etc, all encompassed by the single land use named Trinity Presbyterian Church". Just as we separate strain stations and platform - the station is there to provide access and service patrons of the platform, but it isn't where you get on the train. The church's facilities are "part of the church", and serve the churches needs, but it isn't where you do your praying and listen to the sermon. > We don't have to mash all cultures together in one-size-fits-all tags. Specific tags are less-used tags. I notice we don't have natural=cherry_tree, or natural=Supertall_Redwood_Tree, just natural=tree. Goes on all the trees. Generic tags with additional info are more flexible. There are a ton of Jehovah's witness buildings around the world, but there is no "JW_Kingdom_hall_grounds tag either. This is why we use generic tags with more specific sub-tags - to avoid this kind of messy religion-based taggery. narita: name=naritasan landuse=religion religion=buddhist;shinto see? easy as pie. BTW Buddhist is all over asia, not Just Japan, so there would be buddhist temples from Japan to Afghanistan - I bet a fw of them are mixed-use outside of Japan . Shinto is their homegrown religion, and because of political power struggles a long time ago, Buddhist and shinto buildings often are forced to share the same community grounds - more mixing!! Do I make a specific landuse for each case ( B, S, B+S) or do I use the elegant semicolon with the religion tag? I think the answer is clear. Then tag the buildings with amenity=place_of_worship and religon=__ to match. Tag the building or the area as the amenity if that is all it is, but mixed use areas need a more flexible landuse, without betraying the purpose (it's not commercial, residential, industrial, or retail). Same reason I want a landuse=civic tag. There are plenty of religious places that are more than a church and a parking lot, in both the western and eastern hemispheres. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
