Re: [Tagging] use of points even when it clearly defines a building?
oh okay yeah i get it! On Aug 17 2018, at 4:17 pm, Jmapb wrote: > > On 8/16/2018 6:39 PM, seirra wrote: > > if a floor of a building is for example: a store at the bottom of the > > building, and the rest is apartments... shouldn't it then be a > > building labelled as a chemist, with the tag level=0 and at the same > > point on the map, a building labelled as apartments with the tag level=1? > > Usually this would be mapped as a node (point) for the shop, set inside > the perimeter of the building. The node gets tagged with all the > information specific for the shop (name, phone, opening_hours, etc.) The > building area gets tagged with all of the physical attributes of the > building (height, building style, sometimes the building has its own > name that it keeps regardless of what shop is occupying the ground > floor.) The address tags would also generally go on the building itself > -- unless the building has multiple addresses. > > We definitely don't want two buildings at the same location to indicate > the two different uses of a single building. It is possible to draw an > area for the bottom floor shop instead of a node -- just tag the area as > a shop, not as a building. And add the level=0 tag, as you mentioned. > (And it probably wouldn't be the *entire* bottom floor of course; you'd > want to leave room for the stairs for instance.) > > The general rule is *not* to map any specifics of private areas of > buildings -- the apartments on the upper floors, for instance. You can > use the building:units= tag to indicate the number of apartments, and > addr:flats= tag to list the apartment numbers, but that's generally as > far as we go. > > J > ___ > 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] use of points even when it clearly defines a building?
sent from a phone > On 17. Aug 2018, at 10:01, seirra wrote: > > in that case wouldn't it make more sense to just put start_date:building so > there was just one object with the same information? how many objects you see depends on you, but to me, few objects with simple, straightforward, standard tags are more appealing than one single object with long nested and combined tags which merge different concepts (like a building and a business). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] use of points even when it clearly defines a building?
On 8/16/2018 6:39 PM, seirra wrote: if a floor of a building is for example: a store at the bottom of the building, and the rest is apartments... shouldn't it then be a building labelled as a chemist, with the tag level=0 and at the same point on the map, a building labelled as apartments with the tag level=1? Usually this would be mapped as a node (point) for the shop, set inside the perimeter of the building. The node gets tagged with all the information specific for the shop (name, phone, opening_hours, etc.) The building area gets tagged with all of the physical attributes of the building (height, building style, sometimes the building has its own name that it keeps regardless of what shop is occupying the ground floor.) The address tags would also generally go on the building itself -- unless the building has multiple addresses. We definitely don't want two buildings at the same location to indicate the two different uses of a single building. It is possible to draw an area for the bottom floor shop instead of a node -- just tag the area as a shop, not as a building. And add the level=0 tag, as you mentioned. (And it probably wouldn't be the *entire* bottom floor of course; you'd want to leave room for the stairs for instance.) The general rule is *not* to map any specifics of private areas of buildings -- the apartments on the upper floors, for instance. You can use the building:units= tag to indicate the number of apartments, and addr:flats= tag to list the apartment numbers, but that's generally as far as we go. J ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] use of points even when it clearly defines a building?
in that case wouldn't it make more sense to just put start_date:building so there was just one object with the same information? obviously if there's multiple uses for the building then the use of points makes sense until someone maps the actual polygons On 08/17/18 00:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 17. Aug 2018, at 00:39, seirra wrote: where a point clearly defines a building in these areas should it be corrected? also if a floor of a building is for example: a store at the bottom of the building, and the rest is apartments... shouldn't it then be a building labelled as a chemist, we try to distinguish the building from the user. A building is a building, a chemist is a company. Often simple cases are mapped taking a “short cut” and the poi and the building are mixed into one OSM object, what is tolerated but generally deemed less precise because you don’t know which of the tags belongs to the building and which to the business.(name? start_date? etc) A common solution is creating a node within the building polygon for the business. Another way is using an overlapping way or creating a multipolygon (even with just one outer member in some cases) for the business. 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] use of points even when it clearly defines a building?
sent from a phone > On 17. Aug 2018, at 00:39, seirra wrote: > > where a point clearly defines a building in these areas should it be > corrected? also if a floor of a building is for example: a store at the > bottom of the building, and the rest is apartments... shouldn't it then be a > building labelled as a chemist, we try to distinguish the building from the user. A building is a building, a chemist is a company. Often simple cases are mapped taking a “short cut” and the poi and the building are mixed into one OSM object, what is tolerated but generally deemed less precise because you don’t know which of the tags belongs to the building and which to the business.(name? start_date? etc) A common solution is creating a node within the building polygon for the business. Another way is using an overlapping way or creating a multipolygon (even with just one outer member in some cases) for the business. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] use of points even when it clearly defines a building?
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 6:40 PM seirra wrote: > oh! before i go to bed just one last one, when correcting some typos or > wrong use of tagging i've noticed a few locations that used points > rather than directly applying the feature to the building (as in no > buildings having features at all as if it was an agreed style)... most > notably: > > italy north plars > crescent street montreal > Czech Technology Park > Grand Admiral Resort & SPA The first - I have no idea what sort of an object that is. The second looks extremely odd - I'd expect something named 'street' to be represented by one or more ways. The third and fourth are not necessarily wrong. I'd expect entities called 'Technology Park' or 'Resort and Spa' to encompass grounds as well as buildings, with the tags for the whole complex appearing on the enclosing area. If a mapper has not determined the area, mapping a point is acceptable practice as a placeholder. Hence, for example 'GE Global Research Center' is tagged https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/479164244 on an area that approximates the facilitiy's borders. The buildings are tagged with their individual names, but none is tagged with the facility name. The street address is intentionally attached to the visitor center, because people needing directions to '1 Research Circle' should be sent there, rather than to any of the other gates. Before the campus was mapped in detail, the name was attached to a point feature. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] use of points even when it clearly defines a building?
oh! before i go to bed just one last one, when correcting some typos or wrong use of tagging i've noticed a few locations that used points rather than directly applying the feature to the building (as in no buildings having features at all as if it was an agreed style)... most notably: italy north plars crescent street montreal Czech Technology Park Grand Admiral Resort & SPA where a point clearly defines a building in these areas should it be corrected? also if a floor of a building is for example: a store at the bottom of the building, and the rest is apartments... shouldn't it then be a building labelled as a chemist, with the tag level=0 and at the same point on the map, a building labelled as apartments with the tag level=1? or should we wait until we (hopefully) have the ability to more easily switch between layers and then sort it out once that lands? (to avoid difficulties on the ID editor) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
