Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Warin]

On 27/07/18 20:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 27. Jul 2018, at 12:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Looks like common entrances to me?
Another alternative is residences?


the first ones I posted some days ago had individual entrances, these are from 
an Internet search and although they are similar, they are not completely 
(these are in France and UK I guess) the same.


I know the Lake District, it is in the UK - England. Every time I go there it 
rains on me!!!
One of your photos is from there, though I don't recognise it .. probably 
because it is not raining.




Common entrances are not the only criterion, size is another, as might be 
ownership.

I would not call the newer examples apartment buildings because they only have 
1-3 units.


1 unit? .. it is not an 'apartment' nor could I call it a unit ... that it a 
house.

2 units  .. would have to be an upstairs unit .. if split horizontally then 
probably 2 'detached houses'.

I don't think there is a number limitation on apartments .. no lower limit 
(other than more than 1) that I know of.

Had a great aunt that lived is a 3 unit apartment block.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Jul 2018, at 12:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Looks like common entrances to me? 
> Another alternative is residences?


the first ones I posted some days ago had individual entrances, these are from 
an Internet search and although they are similar, they are not completely 
(these are in France and UK I guess) the same.

Common entrances are not the only criterion, size is another, as might be 
ownership.

I would not call the newer examples apartment buildings because they only have 
1-3 units.

Cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Warin]

On 27/07/18 19:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone

On 27. Jul 2018, at 10:18, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


If it is intended for more than one family (and the independent 
entrances give that feeling) then I'd not use "house" .. apartments 
perhaps?



for me “apartments” means a place with a shared building entrance.
I would also expect an apartment building to have more than 1 or 2 
apartments.


Commonly (outside osm), the definition of house includes buildings for 
a “few” families.


To me, these would all be houses: 
https://www.france4u.eu/content/s75s75/images/201710/20/f20171020104122-P1060038-1024x768.jpg


https://c8.alamy.com/comp/DYKGDF/guest-houses-across-glenridding-beck-in-village-centre-in-lake-district-DYKGDF.jpg

Would you call these apartment buildings?



Looks like common entrances to me?
Another alternative is residences?

---
I suppose it is an association of 'home' and 'house' that I am using to 
think of a 'house'.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Jul 2018, at 10:18, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> If it is intended for more than one family (and the independent entrances 
> give that feeling) then I'd not use "house" .. apartments perhaps?


for me “apartments” means a place with a shared building entrance.
I would also expect an apartment building to have more than 1 or 2 apartments.

Commonly (outside osm), the definition of house includes buildings for a “few” 
families.

To me, these would all be houses: 
https://www.france4u.eu/content/s75s75/images/201710/20/f20171020104122-P1060038-1024x768.jpg

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/DYKGDF/guest-houses-across-glenridding-beck-in-village-centre-in-lake-district-DYKGDF.jpg

Would you call these apartment buildings?

Cheers,
Martin 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Warin]

On 27/07/18 18:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 26. Jul 2018, at 22:48, Mike H <1jg...@gmail.com> wrote:

maybe even adding to them as the pages are still pretty sparse on detail.


we have to be careful when making the definitions more specific (adding detail 
will result in this), as there will be differences how houses are built in 
different parts of the world (due to climatic and cultural differences and 
available building materials).


It can beneficial to give examples.

I like the East African Tagging Guidelines
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/East_Africa_Tagging_Guidelines

where roads are shown for urban and countryside. There are dramatic differences.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Warin]

On 27/07/18 18:06, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone

On 26. Jul 2018, at 22:48, Mike H <1jg...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


I went and updated the wiki a little bit. I added details to the 
building=house 
 and



you kept the „single dwelling“ paragraph. I’ve got no feedback on my 
previous mail about houses in villages (with several units (1-3) and 
independent entrances). They can be quite old (basements in one 
village I‘m going to frequently have been carved into the tuff stone 
and predate ancient roman times, the upper floors are usually a few 
hundred years old in this village, but others can also be more 
recent). They are residential buildings with usually 1 apartments per 
floor and 2-3 floors. (pictures see in the other mail)

Are these “houses” or not?



For me a "house" is a single family dwelling.. or at least intended for 
a single family.


If it is intended for more than one family (and the independent 
entrances give that feeling) then I'd not use "house" .. apartments 
perhaps?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Jul 2018, at 22:48, Mike H <1jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> maybe even adding to them as the pages are still pretty sparse on detail.


we have to be careful when making the definitions more specific (adding detail 
will result in this), as there will be differences how houses are built in 
different parts of the world (due to climatic and cultural differences and 
available building materials). 

Cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Warin]

On 27/07/18 17:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 26. Jul 2018, at 19:47, Sebastian  wrote:

In Australia houses that share one or more walls with the next house (can be 
one or both sides) are called town houses



town houses are a more recent variation of terraced houses. The term usually 
describes luxury residences (terraced) in central locations of big cities (this 
definition based on German context, not sure about other countries).



Correct in Australia too, they date from before WW2 at least.
Terrace houses in Australia come from workers dwellings - cheap and small.
They originally had an outside toilet, no bathroom.
Some times the end ones were bigger, the end units were certainly preferred as 
you had a little more privacy and a little more land along side.
There are still a number of these around, now with preservation orders on them.

2 of these would fit inside one modern town house.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Jul 2018, at 22:48, Mike H <1jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I went and updated the wiki a little bit. I added details to the 
> building=house and


you kept the „single dwelling“ paragraph. I’ve got no feedback on my previous 
mail about houses in villages (with several units (1-3) and independent 
entrances). They can be quite old (basements in one village I‘m going to 
frequently have been carved into the tuff stone and predate ancient roman 
times, the upper floors are usually a few hundred years old in this village, 
but others can also be more recent). They are residential buildings with 
usually 1 apartments per floor and 2-3 floors. (pictures see in the other mail)
Are these “houses” or not?


cheers,
Martin___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Jul 2018, at 19:47, Sebastian  wrote:
> 
> In Australia houses that share one or more walls with the next house (can be 
> one or both sides) are called town houses



town houses are a more recent variation of terraced houses. The term usually 
describes luxury residences (terraced) in central locations of big cities (this 
definition based on German context, not sure about other countries).


Cheers,
Martin 


Cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Mike H]

I went and updated the wiki a little bit. I added details to the
building=house  and
building=detached
 pages. I also
made a page for the building=semidetached_house
,
when writing that page I found that the building=semi
 tag already had a
page, and even talks about the semidatached_house tag, which has about
three times as many uses. I think everyone in this thread might be
interested in looking over the changes I made, and maybe even adding to
them as the pages are still pretty sparse on detail.

Jgon6

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 2:39 PM Philip Barnes  wrote:

>
>
> On 26 July 2018 19:47:11 CEST, Sebastian 
> wrote:
> >Thanks for this explanation. Detached sounds very strange to me.
> >Terrace house evokes in me the feeling of rice terraces or something
> >with a
> >distinct height difference between them.
> Terrace is a very common term and housing style in the UK, well England
> and Wales. It is usually used to refer to terraced houses built in the 19th
> and early 20th centuries.
> >
> >In Australia houses that share one or more walls with the next house
> >(can
> >be one or both sides) are called town houses.
> Interestingly this is the estate agent term used to describe modern
> terraced houses.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
> >
> >In Germany it's called 'Reihenhaus'.
> >
> >On 23 July 2018 at 00:27, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
> >
> >> Probably the reason can be explained etymologically.
> >>
> >> In the UK, terraced houses (AmE row houses) are very common, so those
> >> lucky enough to hear less noise from their neighbours emphasize that
> >by
> >> owning a 'detached' (not attached to a terrace) or 'semi-detached'
> >(two
> >> houses sharing a wall) building. The detached/semi-detached also
> >allow
> >> outdoor access to the back garden, so the 'end-of-terrace' house is
> >> marketed with a similar advantage.
> >>
> >> In countries where terraced houses are less common, there is less
> >need to
> >> emphasize that the house is free-standing. Also, 'house' is easier to
> >> understand for a non-native speaker than 'detached'.
> >>
> >> tom
> >>
> >>
> >> On 22.07.2018 20:56, Mike H wrote:
> >>
> >>> The definitions of building=house and building=detached on the wiki
> >are
> >>> very similar and don't seem to have any meaningful difference.
> >>>
> >>> I've seen people say that house is meant for rowhouses, and detached
> >>> should be for stand-alone houses, but there is no documentation that
> >>> explains that. If that is the intended meanings of the tags, then
> >the wiki
> >>> pages need some work.
> >>>
> >>> As far as how I've seen things actually mapped, I've only ever seen
> >the
> >>> building=house tag. Taginfo shows 1.2 million uses of detached, and
> >27.2
> >>> million uses of building=house, so they are both used quite a bit,
> >but
> >>> house is used a lot more.
> >>>
> >>> Can anyone elaborate on these tags, or have ideas on how they could
> >be
> >>> better written about?
> >>>
> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dhouse
> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Ddetached
> >>>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> ___
> 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] building = house vs detached.

[Philip Barnes]

On 26 July 2018 19:47:11 CEST, Sebastian  wrote:
>Thanks for this explanation. Detached sounds very strange to me.
>Terrace house evokes in me the feeling of rice terraces or something
>with a
>distinct height difference between them.
Terrace is a very common term and housing style in the UK, well England and 
Wales. It is usually used to refer to terraced houses built in the 19th and 
early 20th centuries. 
>
>In Australia houses that share one or more walls with the next house
>(can
>be one or both sides) are called town houses.
Interestingly this is the estate agent term used to describe modern terraced 
houses.

Phil (trigpoint) 


>
>In Germany it's called 'Reihenhaus'.
>
>On 23 July 2018 at 00:27, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
>
>> Probably the reason can be explained etymologically.
>>
>> In the UK, terraced houses (AmE row houses) are very common, so those
>> lucky enough to hear less noise from their neighbours emphasize that
>by
>> owning a 'detached' (not attached to a terrace) or 'semi-detached'
>(two
>> houses sharing a wall) building. The detached/semi-detached also
>allow
>> outdoor access to the back garden, so the 'end-of-terrace' house is
>> marketed with a similar advantage.
>>
>> In countries where terraced houses are less common, there is less
>need to
>> emphasize that the house is free-standing. Also, 'house' is easier to
>> understand for a non-native speaker than 'detached'.
>>
>> tom
>>
>>
>> On 22.07.2018 20:56, Mike H wrote:
>>
>>> The definitions of building=house and building=detached on the wiki
>are
>>> very similar and don't seem to have any meaningful difference.
>>>
>>> I've seen people say that house is meant for rowhouses, and detached
>>> should be for stand-alone houses, but there is no documentation that
>>> explains that. If that is the intended meanings of the tags, then
>the wiki
>>> pages need some work.
>>>
>>> As far as how I've seen things actually mapped, I've only ever seen
>the
>>> building=house tag. Taginfo shows 1.2 million uses of detached, and
>27.2
>>> million uses of building=house, so they are both used quite a bit,
>but
>>> house is used a lot more.
>>>
>>> Can anyone elaborate on these tags, or have ideas on how they could
>be
>>> better written about?
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dhouse
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Ddetached
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Sebastian]

Thanks for this explanation. Detached sounds very strange to me.
Terrace house evokes in me the feeling of rice terraces or something with a
distinct height difference between them.

In Australia houses that share one or more walls with the next house (can
be one or both sides) are called town houses.

In Germany it's called 'Reihenhaus'.

On 23 July 2018 at 00:27, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> Probably the reason can be explained etymologically.
>
> In the UK, terraced houses (AmE row houses) are very common, so those
> lucky enough to hear less noise from their neighbours emphasize that by
> owning a 'detached' (not attached to a terrace) or 'semi-detached' (two
> houses sharing a wall) building. The detached/semi-detached also allow
> outdoor access to the back garden, so the 'end-of-terrace' house is
> marketed with a similar advantage.
>
> In countries where terraced houses are less common, there is less need to
> emphasize that the house is free-standing. Also, 'house' is easier to
> understand for a non-native speaker than 'detached'.
>
> tom
>
>
> On 22.07.2018 20:56, Mike H wrote:
>
>> The definitions of building=house and building=detached on the wiki are
>> very similar and don't seem to have any meaningful difference.
>>
>> I've seen people say that house is meant for rowhouses, and detached
>> should be for stand-alone houses, but there is no documentation that
>> explains that. If that is the intended meanings of the tags, then the wiki
>> pages need some work.
>>
>> As far as how I've seen things actually mapped, I've only ever seen the
>> building=house tag. Taginfo shows 1.2 million uses of detached, and 27.2
>> million uses of building=house, so they are both used quite a bit, but
>> house is used a lot more.
>>
>> Can anyone elaborate on these tags, or have ideas on how they could be
>> better written about?
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dhouse
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Ddetached
>>
>
> ___
> 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] building = house vs detached.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 25. Jul 2018, at 00:11, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> But we must also not be tempted to force multiple concepts into a single tag 
> hierarchy. Before we start down that path, let us be clear what the hierarchy 
> is intended to represent, and what factors are in-scope (a different brick 
> colour will not lead to a different building type, but brick-built vs. 
> wood-faced may impact the type).


I was mainly thinking about offering a possible structure for the tags that are 
used now (most usage). It would hopefully grow with the help of many mappers. 
Overlaps and orthogonal classes can be discussed when we find them. For rough 
classes like those that are mostly used, there is usually no material implied 
(material can be tagged separately anyway).



> Lets be explicit about whether it is as-built or as-used, and how to handle 
> mixed-use buildings.


These are both very good questions. Generally the type is as-built, but this 
includes transformations. If something was built as a water tower (extreme 
example) and now there are apartments in it, how do we classify it. The answer 
is probably in judging the single case. Does it still look like a water tower 
with apartments in, or is it not recognizable any more? Mostly I would tend to 
use the original purpose, which imposed the requirements that made the building 
what it is (unless drastical modifications were applied later on). 


For mixed use buildings: these could be types of their own. While 
mathematically there could be near infinite combinations, in practice there are 
not so many. There are surely also a handful of weird/unexpected combinations, 
but for these you’ll have problems with any system anyway, let’s not get them 
into the way of finding something for typical combinations (e.g. from bottom to 
top, all are optional, shops-offices-apartments). I’d treat shops and 
restaurants/pubs/cafes the same here.
A different approach would be splitting into building_part of blocks of 
building levels with the same structure and add level tags




> If we look first at as-built, we will need a parallel tagging taxonomy for 
> the usage aspect; and the other way around of course.


Usage is already tagged as POIs, if you map them as areas and add level tags 
you are done. (Do we need tags for residential units?)


Cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 24. Jul 2018, at 09:36, Andrew Hain  wrote:
> 
> We can have building=bungalow but that is redundant when it just means 
> building:levels=1.


I am still not sure building=bungalow really says nothing more than 1 floor, 
but if it did, it is ok.


> 
> We can have building=detached, building=semi,  building=house with most 
> people using them incorrectly or
> inconsistently or we can have building=residential and let the footprint 
> indicate the type. 


you can’t get the type by looking at the footprint.


Or, if you insist, add
> 
> residential=* where clarification is desirable.



there’s no benefit in splitting one good tag in 2, if the second makes the 
first redundant.


> 
> We've just had a lot of people say "The wiki says this should be 
> building=detached but I always use building=house."


They can do this, detached houses are a subclass of houses. Nobody urges them 
to add more detail.


> That indicates the tags don't map well to how people actually think.


come on, a handful of contributions to this thread, most people are ok with how 
it is and don’t engage in this discussion, because it is clear it will most 
likely not lead to changes in the tagging recommendations for residential 
buildings.

There are more than a million detached houses mapped as such. It is a common 
term, people understand it well, it won’t go away.


  It also means that you can't rely on the value
> 
> used indicating what it is meant to.  We can carry on with the current muddle 
> or we can try to do better.  You vote muddle.


Can you give an example why what you describe is “muddle” and how you cannot 
rely on it? How would the situation improve if all this information was 
replaced by “residential”?

I would not call this “muddle” but plurality. We are still not at a very good 
point with buildings (80% still not classified at all), but the situation is 
improving, last time I looked at it, more than 90% of all values were “yes”.
Shall we retag all building=residential to building=yes for consistency (after 
all it is likely that most residential buildings are tagged as “yes”)?


Cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-07-24 23:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> We should not remove the details, and nuances in this field, data consumers 
> can deal with it, they will either treat all/most buildings the same (so it 
> doesn't matter to them anyway), or they could be specifically interested in 
> generalized types they can now define as they need, or they are really 
> interested in different dwelling typologies and their spatial distribution, 
> and are happy with what they find in some places in osm. 
> 
> What would IMHO make more sense are lists or better structured trees that 
> show the system / hierarchy of the building values that are in use. The 
> current flat list does not do a very good job in explaining the system nor 
> for finding specific tags.

I am always in favour of initiatives to increase the structuredness of
the data. But we must also not be tempted to force multiple concepts
into a single tag hierarchy. Before we start down that path, let us be
clear what the hierarchy is intended to represent, and what factors are
in-scope (a different brick colour will not lead to a different building
type, but brick-built vs. wood-faced may impact the type). Lets be
explicit about whether it is as-built or as-used, and how to handle
mixed-use buildings. If we look first at as-built, we will need a
parallel tagging taxonomy for the usage aspect; and the other way around
of course.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 24. Jul 2018, at 09:36, Andrew Hain  wrote:
> 
> That's what we do with some other types of buildings.  We separate form from 
> function.   We have industrial buildings
> and then specify the industry.


building=industrial is very poor tagging (armchair level of detail), as 
industrial contains storage as well as production, these two would IMHO be a 
minimum distinction to make sense. Clearly a cement plant is a very different 
kind of structure than a warehouse or a sawmill or a chip production plant. If 
someone maps them all as industrial because they don’t care or know at the 
moment, that is fine, but they should not wonder if with the time these will 
become more refined.


cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 24. Jul 2018, at 09:36, Andrew Hain  wrote:
> 
> -1, there are several established tags for residential buildings in osm, e.g. 
> apartments,
> 
> The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many of them.  We 
> have many tags for residential buildings
> and the result is that they're used inconsistently.


I am not seeing this, I can see many levels of detail, from “yes” via 
“residential” to “house”, “detached” and finally specific local types like 
“trullo”.

It is not inconsistent (in a harmful way) to map with different level of 
detail/specificity, it is rather normal for a project with many contributors 
with different personal interests and fields of knowledge. It would be a 
problem if the inconsistency were industrial production buildings mapped as 
residential buildings (for example).

We should not remove the details, and nuances in this field, data consumers can 
deal with it, they will either treat all/most buildings the same (so it doesn’t 
matter to them anyway), or they could be specifically interested in generalized 
types they can now define as they need, or they are really interested in 
different dwelling typologies and their spatial distribution, and are happy 
with what they find in some places in osm.

What would IMHO make more sense are lists or better structured trees that show 
the system / hierarchy of the building values that are in use. The current flat 
list does not do a very good job in explaining the system nor for finding 
specific tags.

Cheers,
Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Jmapb]

On 7/23/2018 5:56 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


On 23. Jul 2018, at 17:08, Jmapb  wrote:

woke up to the conclusion that the attached/detached/semi-detached distinction 
is not a great use of the building tag. As mentioned by André, we can literally 
see on the map if these house footprints are attached via shared party wall.


it is not possible to do it reliably for terraced houses, because they are not 
only characterized by being attached.


This is true. Once a terrace has been converted from a single 
building=terrace way to a row of building=house ways, there's no sure 
way to distinguish it from a group of same-sized adjacent non-terrace 
houses. If we want to be able to pinpoint terraces, we should leave them 
as building=terrace ways. The wiki, though, specifically encourages 
breaking them up into houses.


Is it important to be able to query the map for terraces? If so, the 
wiki should change. Change the text to favor a single building=terrace 
way... or encourage a value like building=terrace_house when dividing 
them up into individual residences. But my guess is that the number of 
terraces already chopped up into building=house is so large that this 
would be futile.



So there's really no need to describe the attached-ness using the building tag. 
 So the building tag is freed up to describe the characteristic style of 
the building  -- hut, shed, bungalow, house, apartments, villa, static_caravan


if you agree with the list above it seems more consistent not to drop detached 
in favor of residential; detached, semi-detached and terraced are all subtypes 
of houses, there is some overlap with bungalows and villas.


I don't consider that list to be canonical, just rattling off some of 
the more popular typologies. But in my mind, if the attached-ness can be 
visually seen on the map and geometrically determined by examining 
adjacent ways (admittedly this would be a complex query -- can't even 
begin to think how I'd code that in overpass) there's no need to crowd 
that info into the value of the building tag.


Mainly, I'm doubting the need for building=detached -- it's a house, and 
if it doesn't share a party wall with another building, then clearly 
it's a detached house. But it's also true that the word "detached" 
evokes a certain style of building, and if mappers think it's a good 
value to describe a particular building, I'm not going to argue, or 
advocate for retagging.


J

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

 On 23/07/2018 14:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote


  
 it does not seem to be a very promising concept though. Terraced houses are 
usually seen as a compromise for people who want an independent house, but 
cannot afford a detached one. Terraced houses are cheaper because they need 
less ground (i.e. you can usually find them where the ground is expensive to 
buy), expensive ground means you’ll try to use it intensively, which is 
contradicting the bungalow concept.Terraced houses are almost always narrow, 
deep and relatively high.Maybe in the UK with its tradition of terraced houses 
there could be a cultural interest in something like terraced bungalows and 
there is also an energetic advantage from reducing external walls, but overall 
there’s little danger this will become a widespread concept for housing. 
Cheers,Martin ___Tagging mailing 
listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
 An unwise generalisation. Some of the most expensive houses in the UK are 
terraced houses (see Stefan Muthesius "The English Terraced House"). Notable 
examples can be found in Belgravia, Regent's Park, Edinburgh New Town, Regency 
Bath, and many other cities. I can also think of examples in Paris, e.g., Place 
des Vosges. The UK is probably unusual in that terraced houses were built for 
all classes over around a couple of hundred years (roughly 1700 to 1900). 
  At the opposite end of the spectrum, back-to-back terraced houses still exist 
in several places, notably Beeston, a suburb of Leeds (see for instance this 
blog). Thus a plain building=terrace may be inadequate for many purposes (from 
identifying less-well of housing areas, to locating specific types of houses).
  On the actual tagging: it's certainly useful in the UK to distinguish between 
detached, semi-detached and terraced houses. As has been pointed out 
building:levels=1 may be an adequate synonym for bungalow, but there also exist 
"chalet bungalows" which have bedrooms in the roof (usually with dormer 
windows), and certainly I see many detached and semi-detached bungalows. Other 
housing types which may be highly UK specific are : mews houses (found behind 
the grander types of terrace in London and Edinburgh and a few other places, 
and often very expensive); maisonettes, purpose built flats in a structure 
which looks like a house (no good description on wikipedia); (modern british 
usage of) town house, a terraced house with integral garage on the ground floor 
and most living accommodation on the upper floors; link-detached houses, the 
garages of adjacent houses completely fill the space between them.
 I dont have any generic solution to all this, other than to continue 
collecting data. Where I have been trying to precisely delineate very specific 
types of housing I'm using 'private' tags (in part because I need to do archive 
work to find the actual codes used by the architects). 
A commercial mapping provider gave a talk at Geomob about 3 years ago: they 
have something like 70 building classes to cover the spectrum of building types 
in British cities. I have their brochure, but have deliberately avoided 
examining it too closely in case of inadvertently copying their ideas.
 Jerry
      
  ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Andrew Hain]

I see building=house as useful because it distinguishes houses from blocks of 
flats but the case to have anything that repeats way geometry or 
building:levels is much less obvious.

--
Andrew

From: Paul Allen 
Sent: 23 July 2018 22:55:36
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

> On 23. Jul 2018, at 17:07, Paul Allen 
> mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> How about building=residential to replace house/terrace/detached?


-1, there are several established tags for residential buildings in osm, e.g. 
apartments,

The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many of them.  We have 
many tags for residential buildings
and the result is that they're used inconsistently.

and as the example shows, it isn’t possible to reliably identify terraced 
houses just by analyzing the geometry, so
why would we want to remove the details? If someone is only interested in a 
detail level like “residential”, they won’t have to care about the differences 
in meaning and can normalize them all locally to residential.

That's what we do with some other types of buildings.  We separate form from 
function.   We have industrial buildings
and then specify the industry.

We can have building=bungalow but that is redundant when it just means 
building:levels=1.

We can have building=detached, building=semi,  building=house with most people 
using them incorrectly or
inconsistently or we can have building=residential and let the footprint 
indicate the type.  Or, if you insist, add
residential=* where clarification is desirable.

We've just had a lot of people say "The wiki says this should be 
building=detached but I always use building=house."
That indicates the tags don't map well to how people actually think.  It also 
means that you can't rely on the value
used indicating what it is meant to.  We can carry on with the current muddle 
or we can try to do better.  You vote muddle.

--
Paul

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Jul 2018, at 17:08, Jmapb  wrote:
> 
> woke up to the conclusion that the attached/detached/semi-detached 
> distinction is not a great use of the building tag. As mentioned by André, we 
> can literally see on the map if these house footprints are attached via 
> shared party wall. 


it is not possible to do it reliably for terraced houses, because they are not 
only characterized by being attached.


> So there's really no need to describe the attached-ness using the building 
> tag.  So the building tag is freed up to describe the characteristic 
> style of the building  -- hut, shed, bungalow, house, apartments, villa, 
> static_caravan 


if you agree with the list above it seems more consistent not to drop detached 
in favor of residential; detached, semi-detached and terraced are all subtypes 
of houses, there is some overlap with bungalows and villas.

Cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On 23. Jul 2018, at 17:07, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > How about building=residential to replace house/terrace/detached?
>
>
> -1, there are several established tags for residential buildings in osm,
> e.g. apartments,


The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many of them.  We
have many tags for residential buildings
and the result is that they're used inconsistently.


> and as the example shows, it isn’t possible to reliably identify terraced
> houses just by analyzing the geometry, so
> why would we want to remove the details? If someone is only interested in
> a detail level like “residential”, they won’t have to care about the
> differences in meaning and can normalize them all locally to residential.
>

That's what we do with some other types of buildings.  We separate form
from function.   We have industrial buildings
and then specify the industry.

We can have building=bungalow but that is redundant when it just means
building:levels=1.

We can have building=detached, building=semi,  building=house with most
people using them incorrectly or
inconsistently or we can have building=residential and let the footprint
indicate the type.  Or, if you insist, add
residential=* where clarification is desirable.

We've just had a lot of people say "The wiki says this should be
building=detached but I always use building=house."
That indicates the tags don't map well to how people actually think.  It
also means that you can't rely on the value
used indicating what it is meant to.  We can carry on with the current
muddle or we can try to do better.  You vote muddle.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Jul 2018, at 17:07, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> How about building=residential to replace house/terrace/detached? 


-1, there are several established tags for residential buildings in osm, e.g. 
apartments, and as the example shows, it isn’t possible to reliably identify 
terraced houses just by analyzing the geometry, so
why would we want to remove the details? If someone is only interested in a 
detail level like “residential”, they won’t have to care about the differences 
in meaning and can normalize them all locally to residential.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Jul 2018, at 17:02, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> The use of house=terrace may be justified for a transitional situation where 
> a whole terrace has been mapped as a single building and not yet split into 
> individual units. When it is split, it is just a house - the geometry (shared 
> nodes) will show that it connects to the adjacent properties and allow you to 
> derive that it is terraced.


You cannot see from the footprint geometry alone if these are terraced houses, 
because not every attached houses are terraced houses, they are expected to be 
“a series” (same or similar type, same style, architect, etc.)

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Jmapb]

On 7/23/2018 11:02 AM, Colin Smale wrote:


Let's stop conflating concepts and worrying about what things are 
"called", and describe indisputable characteristics of objects, in 
this case how many floors and how/whether the dwelling is connected to 
its neighbours. The use of house=terrace may be justified for a 
transitional situation where a whole terrace has been mapped as a 
single building and not yet split into individual units. When it is 
split, it is just a house - the geometry (shared nodes) will show that 
it connects to the adjacent properties and allow you to derive that it 
is terraced.




Had a good sleep in my single-storey building=shed last night, lulled to 
sleep by rain on the roof, and woke up to the conclusion that the 
attached/detached/semi-detached distinction is not a great use of the 
building tag. As mentioned by André, we can literally see on the map if 
these house footprints are attached via shared party wall. So there's 
really no need to describe the attached-ness using the building tag. For 
number of floors, we have building:levels=*. So the building tag is 
freed up to describe the characteristic style of the building  -- hut, 
shed, bungalow, house, apartments, villa, static_caravan -- or just 
residential or yes -- and if we want to know how attached it is or 
isn't, look at the footprint. (Ignoring for the moment the fact that 
buildings can also be mapped as footprint-less nodes.)


I still see the value of building=terrace for using a single building 
way to map an entire row. Especially for those that really are 
physically constructed as single buildings.


And I could also see the case for building=duplex (though it's not 
currently endorsed by the wiki) because many duplexes are top/bottom, 
and even in side-by-side duplexes it's not always easy for a mapper to 
see where the party wall lies in order to divide the footprint into two 
houses. (Currently I'd just tag these building=residential. 
Wiki-abiding, and it avoids the march towards triplex, quadplex, etc.)


J

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
> Maybe in the UK with its tradition of terraced houses there could be a
> cultural interest in something like terraced bungalows and there is also an
> energetic advantage from reducing external walls, but overall there’s
> little danger this will become a widespread concept for housing.
>

Actually, it's already widespread in the UK.  An increasing percentage of
the population are single people rather than
members of families.  There is increasing pressure from government to build
"social housing" (cheap housing that
people can actually afford to live in).  It doesn't just have the advantage
of better energy efficiency, it also allows more
residences to be built on a plot of land, maximizing profit for the
builder.  Yes, a terraced "two up, two down" would
allow even more residences on the same side plot, but those have stairs and
regulations concerning disabilities mean
the costs of equipping those with lifts would outweigh the savings.

I live in a "terraced bungalow."  The builder (who is also my landlord) has
built many such across the county and
neighbouring counties.  I wouldn't describe it as a terraced bungalow,
though.  I'd not heard the phrase until this thread
started, and I doubt many people not reading this thread would recognize
(or even understand) the phrase.  But they're
becoming very common amongst new build.

To add even more exceptions to this, I recently mapped two buildings that
were originally chapels when built one or
two hundred years ago (and had the traditional appearance of chapels).
Both had been deconsecrated and converted
into two residences.  So building=chapel overall but building=house twice
over.

This whole thing is getting rather messy.  That's because the real world is
messy.  What about a detached house that
has been converted into several flats?  As somebody else said,
building=terrace is useful for quick mapping with
a number range, not individual residences but is not really useful (or
sensible) for mapping individual residences in
a terrace.  Visual inspection of the map tells you if a building is
detached, semi-detached or part of a terrace; there's
no need for deeper tagging unless you're a police team planning on
releasing hostages by breaking down walls
between residences in a terrace (so then you'd need a routeing algorithm,
if you were too stupid to just look at the
map).

How about building=residential to replace house/terrace/detached?  And
maybe replace bungalow too, because
building:levels=1 already encompasses that case.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Colin Smale]

Martin, you might not agree with some of the past architectural choices
in the UK, but the point is that a "single-floor dwelling" (i.e. ground
floor only) is a called a bungalow, and this can exist in many forms. It
can be detached, terraced, end-of-terrace or semi-detached. The last two
can be only subtly different - if there is a terraced house in the
middle, you would call it end-of-terrace and not semi-detached; if there
are only two dwellings joined together, they are semi-detached. All as
per (British) English usage of course. An end-of-terrace house may also
have an identical layout to the terraced house next door - it might not
have any extra windows or land at the side. 

There are also houses which are joined only at the first floor level (or
possibly some other combination of levels), which I learnt to call
link-detached. 

The point is that whether a dwelling is a bungalow or not, is orthogonal
to whether it is {detached, semi-detached, terraced, end-of-terrace}. It
is perfectly possible for a semi-detached bungalow to be attached to a
semi-detached non-bungalow. 

So "bungalow" as an attribute is actually just an alias for something
like "floors=1" where the floor is the ground floor. 

The RICS (Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors) ought to know:

http://www.rics.org/uk/knowledge/glossary/residential-property-types-definitions/


Let's stop conflating concepts and worrying about what things are
"called", and describe indisputable characteristics of objects, in this
case how many floors and how/whether the dwelling is connected to its
neighbours. The use of house=terrace may be justified for a transitional
situation where a whole terrace has been mapped as a single building and
not yet split into individual units. When it is split, it is just a
house - the geometry (shared nodes) will show that it connects to the
adjacent properties and allow you to derive that it is terraced. 

To help you visualise what terraced bungalows look like, here's an
example: 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kinsaley_Lane_Terraced_Bungalows_-_geograph.org.uk_-_530719.jpg


Let's ban house=bungalow. It's a house because it is intended for people
to live in it. 

By the way, the Dutch national register of buildings allows for a
complex mapping of dwelling units to physical buildings. A dwelling,
which has an address, may be composed of multiple building units (e.g. a
granny flat or outbuilding can be part of the same dwelling). A building
may be composed of multiple building units (e.g. apartments). Not all
buildings are part of a dwelling unit, and not all man-made
constructions are buildings. How do we link parts of a dwelling together
in OSM? I guess a relation with type=house containing the parts as
building=house? 

On 2018-07-23 15:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 23. Jul 2018, at 14:13, Colin Smale  wrote:
>> 
>> The owner would say he lived in a bungalow. No stairs, ground floor only.
> 
>> I don't think "terraced bungalow" exists as a phrase, but as a concept it 
>> certainly does.
> 
> it does not seem to be a very promising concept though. Terraced houses are 
> usually seen as a compromise for people who want an independent house, but 
> cannot afford a detached one. Terraced houses are cheaper because they need 
> less ground (i.e. you can usually find them where the ground is expensive to 
> buy), expensive ground means you'll try to use it intensively, which is 
> contradicting the bungalow concept.
> Terraced houses are almost always narrow, deep and relatively high.
> 
> Maybe in the UK with its tradition of terraced houses there could be a 
> cultural interest in something like terraced bungalows and there is also an 
> energetic advantage from reducing external walls, but overall there's little 
> danger this will become a widespread concept for housing. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Jul 2018, at 14:13, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> The owner would say he lived in a bungalow. No stairs, ground floor only.


> I don't think "terraced bungalow" exists as a phrase, but as a concept it 
> certainly does.


it does not seem to be a very promising concept though. Terraced houses are 
usually seen as a compromise for people who want an independent house, but 
cannot afford a detached one. Terraced houses are cheaper because they need 
less ground (i.e. you can usually find them where the ground is expensive to 
buy), expensive ground means you’ll try to use it intensively, which is 
contradicting the bungalow concept.
Terraced houses are almost always narrow, deep and relatively high.


Maybe in the UK with its tradition of terraced houses there could be a cultural 
interest in something like terraced bungalows and there is also an energetic 
advantage from reducing external walls, but overall there’s little danger this 
will become a widespread concept for housing. 

Cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Colin Smale]

The owner would say he lived in a bungalow. No stairs, ground floor only. I 
don't think "terraced bungalow" exists as a phrase, but as a concept it 
certainly does. 


On 23 July 2018 10:44:30 CEST, Martin Koppenhoefer  
wrote:
>2018-07-23 6:17 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale :
>
>>
>> In British English a bungalow is a single storey dwelling, I. E. It
>refers
>> to the vertical axis. Nothing is implied about its juxtaposition.
>There are
>> also terraced bungalows.
>
>
>
>are "terraced bungalows" really part of the natural language, or is
>this
>maybe an advertising euphemism created by the real estate industry?
>
>Cheers,
>Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:08 AM, Mike H <1jg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems that detached is supposed to be a more detailed value than house.
> I went through as many house type values for building as I could find of
> taginfo, and put them into a table quite a few of them look to be
> duplicates/typos. I've attached that table to this email. I used the parent
> column there to list the more general option above the current row, or if
> the value was a duplicate I added that in there.
>
> I also came up with this tree of values as best as I could (sorted by
> usage):
>
> -+yes
>  +-+residential
>+-+house
>  +detached
>  +terrace
>  +static_caravan
>  +semidetached_house
>  +manor
>  +villa
>

Also houseboat.  Which can also be non-residential, even if the wiki
doesn't say it.  There's an Indian restaurant
near me on a converted boat (sometimes you have to map with the tags you
have, not the tags you want, as
Donald Rumsfeld didn't quite say).

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-07-23 6:17 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale :

>
> In British English a bungalow is a single storey dwelling, I. E. It refers
> to the vertical axis. Nothing is implied about its juxtaposition. There are
> also terraced bungalows.



are "terraced bungalows" really part of the natural language, or is this
maybe an advertising euphemism created by the real estate industry?

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-07-23 3:09 GMT+02:00 Jmapb :

>
> That's about the size of it. People will most likely continue tagging
> freestanding houses as "house" because, hey, it's a house. Luckily, it's
> not incorrect. I can imagine a theoretical mapper wanting to retag them as
> "detached" instead, and I'd tell that mapper: "Nah. Let those houses be.
> They're fine."
>



yes, houses are residential buildings, can be freestanding (detached) but
do not have to. Currently the wiki says houses are usually single household
buildings, I am not sure I would agree with this. I have been tagging
houses in historic villages as houses that usually have 2 floors, generally
with independent entrances from outside (individual doors from the street,
upper floors via outside stairs), these are not apartment buildings, but
neither are they one-unit single family buildings. The generic "house" from
my understanding does apply.

examples:
https://www.settemuse.it/viaggi_italia_lazio/VT_calcata/foto_calcata_040.JPG
https://www.settemuse.it/viaggi_italia_lazio/VT_calcata/foto_calcata_056.JPG
https://www.settemuse.it/viaggi_italia_lazio/VT_calcata/foto_calcata_047.JPG



>
> Oh, and then there are bungalows and cottages, which count as houses in
> OSM, so are tagged as
> building=detached.
>
>
> Nb, the wiki does offer building=bungalow, and there are nearly 50k of
> them out there. I'd consider bungalow a special subset of detached (which
> is a special subset of house, etc.)
>


+1

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Jul 2018, at 01:27, André Pirard  wrote:
> 
> So, we have building=house and building=yes at least.
> If we start using building=detached we no longer know if it's a house or a 
> plain building, do we?
> So, detached is not a type of building but an attribute of it.


I agree „detached“ is not a very nice tag, because it is mostly used as a short 
form of „detached_house“ but this is not obvious for non-native speakers.

I don’t agree detached house isn’t a type of building. It is a residential 
building, usually for one family, without touching neighbouring buildings 
(detached building), and with a garden around it (usually).

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Colin Smale]

On 23 July 2018 04:09:03 EEST, Jmapb  wrote:
>On 7/22/2018 7:57 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
>> You've (perhaps inadvertently)  
>
>> Oh, and then there are bungalows and cottages, which count as houses 
>> in OSM, so are tagged as
>> building=detached.
>
>Nb, the wiki does offer building=bungalow, and there are nearly 50k of 
>them out there. I'd consider bungalow a special subset of detached 
>(which is a special subset of house, etc.)
>
What about semi detached bungalows?

In British English a bungalow is a single storey dwelling, I. E. It refers to 
the vertical axis. Nothing is implied about its juxtaposition. There are also 
terraced bungalows.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Jmapb]

On 7/22/2018 7:57 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
You've (perhaps inadvertently) highlighted the problem.  A detached 
building looks like a house, so is tagged as
building=detached.  A property in a terrace (row house in Merkin) 
doesn't look like a house, so is tagged as

building=house.


That's about the size of it. People will most likely continue tagging 
freestanding houses as "house" because, hey, it's a house. Luckily, it's 
not incorrect. I can imagine a theoretical mapper wanting to retag them 
as "detached" instead, and I'd tell that mapper: "Nah. Let those houses 
be. They're fine."


Oh, and then there are bungalows and cottages, which count as houses 
in OSM, so are tagged as

building=detached.


Nb, the wiki does offer building=bungalow, and there are nearly 50k of 
them out there. I'd consider bungalow a special subset of detached 
(which is a special subset of house, etc.)


J
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Mike H]

It seems that detached is supposed to be a more detailed value than house.
I went through as many house type values for building as I could find of
taginfo, and put them into a table quite a few of them look to be
duplicates/typos. I've attached that table to this email. I used the parent
column there to list the more general option above the current row, or if
the value was a duplicate I added that in there.

I also came up with this tree of values as best as I could (sorted by
usage):

-+yes
 +-+residential
   +-+house
 +detached
 +terrace
 +static_caravan
 +semidetached_house
 +manor
 +villa

If that seems correct to everyone I'll see if I can edit the wiki to make
all of this a bit more clear.


On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 8:58 PM Jmapb  wrote:

> On 7/22/2018 6:16 PM, Warin wrote:
>
> >
> > For a row of houses .. ie terrace houses there is
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dterrace
> >
> > I disagree with the suggesting if they are individually mapped they
> > should be tagged building=house, they are still a terrace so
> > building=terrace is still appropriate and more detailed.
>
> By my understanding, the building=terrace tag is to be used when an
> entire set (terrace) of row houses is mapped as a single building way.
> Then the individual residences can be indicated using address nodes or
> address interpolation.
>
> If each individual row house is mapped as its own building way, each
> should be tagged building=house.
>
> (Per the wiki, building=terrace is for "a single way used to define the
> outline of a linear row of residential dwellings, each of which normally
> has its own entrance, which form a terrace (row-house in North American
> English). Consider defining each dwelling separately using 'house'.")
>
> J
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


house names.ods
Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Jmapb]

On 7/22/2018 6:16 PM, Warin wrote:



For a row of houses .. ie terrace houses there is
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dterrace

I disagree with the suggesting if they are individually mapped they 
should be tagged building=house, they are still a terrace so 
building=terrace is still appropriate and more detailed.


By my understanding, the building=terrace tag is to be used when an 
entire set (terrace) of row houses is mapped as a single building way. 
Then the individual residences can be indicated using address nodes or 
address interpolation.


If each individual row house is mapped as its own building way, each 
should be tagged building=house.


(Per the wiki, building=terrace is for "a single way used to define the 
outline of a linear row of residential dwellings, each of which normally 
has its own entrance, which form a terrace (row-house in North American 
English). Consider defining each dwelling separately using 'house'.")


J

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:40 AM, marc marc 
wrote:

building value is what the building look like.
>

+1


> a detached building is a building that look like a house
>

-9 :)

You've (perhaps inadvertently) highlighted the problem.  A detached
building looks like a house, so is tagged as
building=detached.  A property in a terrace (row house in Merkin) doesn't
look like a house, so is tagged as
building=house.

Oh, and then there are bungalows and cottages, which count as houses in
OSM, so are tagged as
building=detached.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[marc marc]

Le 23. 07. 18 à 01:27, André Pirard a écrit :
> If we start using building=detached we no longer know if it's  
> a house or a plain building, do we?
> So, detached is not a type of building but an attribute of it.
> Else, we would use building=detached for a church.

building value is what the building look like.
a detached building is a building that look like a house
without any other building sharing a wall with this building.
if the building is used as a church, add amenity=place_of_worship
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[André Pirard]

On 2018-07-22 20:56, Mike H wrote:
The definitions of building=house and building=detached on the wiki 
are very similar and don't seem to have any meaningful difference.


I've seen people say that house is meant for rowhouses, and detached 
should be for stand-alone houses, but there is no documentation that 
explains that. If that is the intended meanings of the tags, then the 
wiki pages need some work.


As far as how I've seen things actually mapped, I've only ever seen 
the building=house tag. Taginfo shows 1.2 million uses of detached, 
and 27.2 million uses of building=house, so they are both used quite a 
bit, but house is used a lot more.


Can anyone elaborate on these tags, or have ideas on how they could be 
better written about?


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dhouse
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Ddetached

Not speaking of semi-detached that I stumbled upon and which is not in 
the wiki at all.


So, we have building=house and building=yes at least.
If we start using building=detached we no longer know if it's a house or 
a plain building, do we?

So, detached is not a type of building but an attribute of it.
Else, we would use building=detached for a church.
Detached is not a really useful attribute because it can be seen on the 
map and a program can easily determine that one ore more walls are shared.
But if the feeling is that it should be coded, the syntax should be 
something like house:detached=yes|semi or rather 
building:detached=yes|semi or something like that.
Similarly, if one and the wiki speak of terraced (adjective) houses, is 
a terrace a single object with a single house (ahem) number or should 
the houses be mapped separately with the attribute building:terraced=yes?

All that must follow strict logic rules and not vague feelings.
And probably the feeling to code building:color=red will be even 
stronger because it cannot be seen on the map, but in that case don't 
forget to tell the owners to warn about new paint ;-)
As to adopt the terminology of a specific country, it would mean that a 
map reader were expected to know all of them to be able to read the map.


Could the wiki be updated to discourage detached=yes and probably 
introduce building:= as needed so that this discussion 
is not repeated periodically? (there are timid 
building:cadaster/fireproof/levels already)


All the best,

André.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Warin]

On 23/07/18 07:22, Andrew Hain wrote:
I will admit to having stuck to building=house in Britain and letting 
the geometry of the way identify the configuration.

+1
For a row of houses .. ie terrace houses there is
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dterrace

I disagree with the suggesting if they are individually mapped they 
should be tagged building=house, they are still a terrace so 
building=terrace is still appropriate and more detailed.




--
Andrew

*From:* Tom Pfeifer 
*Sent:* 22 July 2018 21:27:30
*To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
*Subject:* Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.
Probably the reason can be explained etymologically.

In the UK, terraced houses (AmE row houses) are very common, so those 
lucky enough to hear less
noise from their neighbours emphasize that by owning a 'detached' (not 
attached to a terrace) or
'semi-detached' (two houses sharing a wall) building. The 
detached/semi-detached also allow outdoor
access to the back garden, so the 'end-of-terrace' house is marketed 
with a similar advantage.


In countries where terraced houses are less common, there is less need 
to emphasize that the house
is free-standing. Also, 'house' is easier to understand for a 
non-native speaker than 'detached'.


tom

On 22.07.2018 20:56, Mike H wrote:
> The definitions of building=house and building=detached on the wiki 
are very similar and don't seem

> to have any meaningful difference.
>
> I've seen people say that house is meant for rowhouses, and detached 
should be for
> stand-alone houses, but there is no documentation that explains 
that. If that is the intended

> meanings of the tags, then the wiki pages need some work.
>
> As far as how I've seen things actually mapped, I've only ever seen 
the building=house tag. Taginfo
> shows 1.2 million uses of detached, and 27.2 million uses of 
building=house, so they are both used

> quite a bit, but house is used a lot more.
>
> Can anyone elaborate on these tags, or have ideas on how they could 
be better written about?

>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dhouse
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Ddetached

___
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] building = house vs detached.

[Steve Doerr]

On 22/07/2018 21:27, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

Probably the reason can be explained etymologically.

In the UK, terraced houses (AmE row houses) are very common, so those 
lucky enough to hear less noise from their neighbours emphasize that 
by owning a 'detached' (not attached to a terrace) or 'semi-detached' 
(two houses sharing a wall) building. The detached/semi-detached also 
allow outdoor access to the back garden, so the 'end-of-terrace' house 
is marketed with a similar advantage.


In a typical British terrace, each house has its own back garden.

--
Steve

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Andrew Hain]

I will admit to having stuck to building=house in Britain and letting the 
geometry of the way identify the configuration.

--
Andrew

From: Tom Pfeifer 
Sent: 22 July 2018 21:27:30
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

Probably the reason can be explained etymologically.

In the UK, terraced houses (AmE row houses) are very common, so those lucky 
enough to hear less
noise from their neighbours emphasize that by owning a 'detached' (not attached 
to a terrace) or
'semi-detached' (two houses sharing a wall) building. The 
detached/semi-detached also allow outdoor
access to the back garden, so the 'end-of-terrace' house is marketed with a 
similar advantage.

In countries where terraced houses are less common, there is less need to 
emphasize that the house
is free-standing. Also, 'house' is easier to understand for a non-native 
speaker than 'detached'.

tom

On 22.07.2018 20:56, Mike H wrote:
> The definitions of building=house and building=detached on the wiki are very 
> similar and don't seem
> to have any meaningful difference.
>
> I've seen people say that house is meant for rowhouses, and detached should 
> be for
> stand-alone houses, but there is no documentation that explains that. If that 
> is the intended
> meanings of the tags, then the wiki pages need some work.
>
> As far as how I've seen things actually mapped, I've only ever seen the 
> building=house tag. Taginfo
> shows 1.2 million uses of detached, and 27.2 million uses of building=house, 
> so they are both used
> quite a bit, but house is used a lot more.
>
> Can anyone elaborate on these tags, or have ideas on how they could be better 
> written about?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dhouse
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Ddetached

___
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] building = house vs detached.

[Tom Pfeifer]

Probably the reason can be explained etymologically.

In the UK, terraced houses (AmE row houses) are very common, so those lucky enough to hear less 
noise from their neighbours emphasize that by owning a 'detached' (not attached to a terrace) or 
'semi-detached' (two houses sharing a wall) building. The detached/semi-detached also allow outdoor 
access to the back garden, so the 'end-of-terrace' house is marketed with a similar advantage.


In countries where terraced houses are less common, there is less need to emphasize that the house 
is free-standing. Also, 'house' is easier to understand for a non-native speaker than 'detached'.


tom

On 22.07.2018 20:56, Mike H wrote:
The definitions of building=house and building=detached on the wiki are very similar and don't seem 
to have any meaningful difference.


I've seen people say that house is meant for rowhouses, and detached should be for 
stand-alone houses, but there is no documentation that explains that. If that is the intended 
meanings of the tags, then the wiki pages need some work.


As far as how I've seen things actually mapped, I've only ever seen the building=house tag. Taginfo 
shows 1.2 million uses of detached, and 27.2 million uses of building=house, so they are both used 
quite a bit, but house is used a lot more.


Can anyone elaborate on these tags, or have ideas on how they could be better 
written about?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dhouse
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Ddetached


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 9:51 PM Jmapb  wrote:

>
> I know that in the USA, it's very common to see detached houses tagged
> as building=house, and there have been lots of mappers and imports of
> house footprints using this tag. Possibly related to the fact that the
> term "detached" is not used very much in the USA, so building=house is a
> much more natural tag to most Americans' ears.
>

In the US detached may also be inferred as an accessory dwelling unit, such
as what is often called a "Mother-in-law" unit.  Around me they are legally
called Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) [1].  I typically have been tagging
single family houses as building=house. I realize it that they should be
building=detached, but so many residential homes in the US are tagged as
building=house.

[1]
https://www.seattle.gov/dpd/permits/commonprojects/motherinlawunits/default.htm

-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Jmapb]

On 7/22/2018 2:56 PM, Mike H wrote:

The definitions of building=house and building=detached on the wiki 
are very similar and don't seem to have any meaningful difference.


I've seen people say that house is meant for rowhouses, and detached 
should be for stand-alone houses, but there is no documentation that 
explains that. If that is the intended meanings of the tags, then the 
wiki pages need some work.


As far as how I've seen things actually mapped, I've only ever seen 
the building=house tag. Taginfo shows 1.2 million uses of detached, 
and 27.2 million uses of building=house, so they are both used quite a 
bit, but house is used a lot more.


Can anyone elaborate on these tags, or have ideas on how they could be 
better written about?


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dhouse
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Ddetached



In order of most specific to least specific: detached, house, 
residential, yes. Tagging a row house as building=detached is wrong, but 
tagging a detached house as building=house is not wrong -- just less 
specific. Some mappers will say that buildings should always be tagged 
with the most specific value possible, and some will just prefer using 
building=yes. It's probably best to adhere to whatever the general local 
practice is in the area you're mapping.


I know that in the USA, it's very common to see detached houses tagged 
as building=house, and there have been lots of mappers and imports of 
house footprints using this tag. Possibly related to the fact that the 
term "detached" is not used very much in the USA, so building=house is a 
much more natural tag to most Americans' ears.


J

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Mike H]

The definitions of building=house and building=detached on the wiki are
very similar and don't seem to have any meaningful difference.

I've seen people say that house is meant for rowhouses, and detached should
be for stand-alone houses, but there is no documentation that explains
that. If that is the intended meanings of the tags, then the wiki pages
need some work.

As far as how I've seen things actually mapped, I've only ever seen the
building=house tag. Taginfo shows 1.2 million uses of detached, and 27.2
million uses of building=house, so they are both used quite a bit, but
house is used a lot more.

Can anyone elaborate on these tags, or have ideas on how they could be
better written about?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dhouse
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Ddetached
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging