Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship
On 21 August 2010 04:29, Pierre-Alain Dorange pdora...@mac.com wrote: Yes it seems strange to tag place_of_worship the whole area. According to the wiki should apply to the church, synagoge, temple... the place of worship, not the office, the garden and so on. To me, it's not strange at all. To me, the place of worship is the church and all related grounds, just as a school is the buildings and all related grounds. Now, just because a church owns a building, that doesn't make it a place of worship, but the immediate grounds of a church are, to me. On the other hand, I have no problem with using landuse = religious if that's what is decided. It will certainly make it easier to mark those sites where you have a church, church school and other functions all in one spot. But then we have to start making edge decisions on that. Is a church run orphanage landuse = religious? How about a church run unemployed support centre? (gives out food, clothes, advice and help to get jobs, etc) Stephen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship
On 27 August 2010 09:31, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: How about a church run unemployed support centre? (gives out food, This could border on the absurd... Several of the job agencies[1] contracted to the Australian Federal Government are run/backed by religious organisations, these places don't give out food etc, so would that still make the landuse=religious? Sanitarium[2], is a commercial arm of the Seventh Day Adventist church, would their food manufacturing/packaging plants be landuse=religious? [1] http://jobsearch.gov.au/provider/providersearch.aspx [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitarium_Health_Food_Company ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship
On 21 August 2010 03:53, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: The landuse=religious seems like a good compromise. Landuse=institutional seems a bit too generic, as there are so many different types of institutions. I was also looking to popularise landuse=religious. I hadn't had a chance to document it yet, but it would work as suggested above, and could, if useful, take the usual religion and denomination tags. Since, as has also been mentioned, active monasteries, convents and the like are also poorly served by the current tagging options, I foresaw an optional tag to describe in more detail what kind of religious installation is being tagged: religious=convent religious=abbey religious=spaghetti_tree Rendering for the land area could either be in some colour common to all religious lands, or perhaps different colours based on the religion tag might be useful for some purposes. I prefer this specific approach over checking for a building tag because a convent, seminary or whatever may well have a church on site, and a holy well and a spaghetti tree. Dermot -- -- Iren sind menschlich ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship
2010/8/21 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com: The landuse=religious seems like a good compromise. Landuse=institutional seems a bit too generic, as there are so many different types of institutions... ...for which we actually don't have landuses either (government, ngos, international institutions like the UNESCO, FAO, NATO, etc.) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship
On 19/08/10 18:32, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote: I got a question about religious tags. There is amenity=place_of_worship (1) for church, temple, mosque, synagogue... (adding the religion and denomination if needed) For convent, monestary and generally religious place but not open to the public there is no official tag. I just found a proposition (2) to tag building=convent, building=monastery, buiding=seminary and even a building=church (?)... There is also a historic=monastery (3) but it seems to apply only to old monastery not used nowday... Do i miss something or is there other tag ? (1) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dplace_of_worship (2) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/building (3) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dmonastery I believe someone in the Irish community (CCed) was suggesting using 'religious' as 'things that are religious but aren't a place of worship'. Rory 0x5373FB61.asc Description: application/pgp-keys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship
Rory McCann r...@technomancy.org wrote: I believe someone in the Irish community (CCed) was suggesting using 'religious' as 'things that are religious but aren't a place of worship'. Something like amenity=religious + religious=monastery ? -- Pierre-Alain Dorange ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship
Pierre-Alain wrote: I got a question about religious tags. Not answering your question as such, but it would be nice if things like amenity=hospital, amenity=school, amenity=place_of_worship and others could be brought into some sort of common standard. Amenity=school is often used to mark the extent of the school grounds with individual buildings being added with a building=* tag (picking an example not by me http://osm.org/go/0esi...@t- ) I have seen hospitals similarly mapped (though sometimes I've seen a building tagged with both building=hospital and amenity=hospital, all on a larger area tagged amenity=hospital), or on its own. Amenity=place_of_worship though seems to be targeted specifically at a building (node or closed way), so not (as) suitable for this as schools and hospitals (especially with the current Mapnik style of dark grey which hides any buildings on any amenity tagged areas which I have seen somewhere once). There are probably more amenity values similar, though these are the three that spring to mind. This has probably already been covered before, here and on the wiki, but I would say the above are candidates to be dropped from amenity= and have both a landuse= for the area and a building= equivalent for each. I realise there are loads in the database, editors have presets, lots of people are using them already, but standardising on their usage would make things easier for newer mappers to pick up and presumably consumers of the data. It's a minor annoyance which is why I mention it. It's not a big enough annoyance for me to start suggesting major changes unless other people think it worthwhile and achievable. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship
Well, I actually tag the whole grounds of a church as amenity=place_of_worship and leave the building(s) as building=yes ignoring the fact that it looks awful on the Mapnik layer. For example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/39724055 On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Pierre-Alain wrote: I got a question about religious tags. Not answering your question as such, but it would be nice if things like amenity=hospital, amenity=school, amenity=place_of_worship and others could be brought into some sort of common standard. Amenity=school is often used to mark the extent of the school grounds with individual buildings being added with a building=* tag (picking an example not by me http://osm.org/go/0esi...@t- ) I have seen hospitals similarly mapped (though sometimes I've seen a building tagged with both building=hospital and amenity=hospital, all on a larger area tagged amenity=hospital), or on its own. Amenity=place_of_worship though seems to be targeted specifically at a building (node or closed way), so not (as) suitable for this as schools and hospitals (especially with the current Mapnik style of dark grey which hides any buildings on any amenity tagged areas which I have seen somewhere once). There are probably more amenity values similar, though these are the three that spring to mind. This has probably already been covered before, here and on the wiki, but I would say the above are candidates to be dropped from amenity= and have both a landuse= for the area and a building= equivalent for each. I realise there are loads in the database, editors have presets, lots of people are using them already, but standardising on their usage would make things easier for newer mappers to pick up and presumably consumers of the data. It's a minor annoyance which is why I mention it. It's not a big enough annoyance for me to start suggesting major changes unless other people think it worthwhile and achievable. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship
2010/8/20 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com: Well, I actually tag the whole grounds of a church as amenity=place_of_worship and leave the building(s) as building=yes ignoring the fact that it looks awful on the Mapnik layer. For example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/39724055 so administration and parking is worship to you, as long as the ground belongs to the church? I will not do this in Rome, as about 25% of all buildings and places belong to the catholic church here ;-). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship
M?rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I actually tag the whole grounds of a church as amenity=place_of_worship and leave the building(s) as building=yes ignoring the fact that it looks awful on the Mapnik layer. For example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/39724055 so administration and parking is worship to you, as long as the ground belongs to the church? I will not do this in Rome, as about 25% of all buildings and places belong to the catholic church here ;-). Yes it seems strange to tag place_of_worship the whole area. According to the wiki should apply to the church, synagoge, temple... the place of worship, not the office, the garden and so on. Of course perhaps it miss a tag to indicate that the area is a religious one but not amenity i think. -- Pierre-Alain Dorange ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship
You're being too literal with worship part of place_of_worship. We have highway=steps and stairways are definitely not highways. On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 2:19 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/8/20 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com: Well, I actually tag the whole grounds of a church as amenity=place_of_worship and leave the building(s) as building=yes ignoring the fact that it looks awful on the Mapnik layer. For example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/39724055 so administration and parking is worship to you, as long as the ground belongs to the church? I will not do this in Rome, as about 25% of all buildings and places belong to the catholic church here ;-). cheers, Martin -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship
2010/8/20 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com: You're being too literal with worship part of place_of_worship. We have highway=steps and stairways are definitely not highways. Amenity=place_of_worship is IMO to be taken literally: it is about worshipping (mosque, church, temple, synagogue, ...) and not about church as institution and their property. Looking at your example I agree that it is probably appropriate there, because the whole sanctuary is the place of worship (and the single churches will then be other pow inside the big one?). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 7:42 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/8/20 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com: You're being too literal with worship part of place_of_worship. We have highway=steps and stairways are definitely not highways. Amenity=place_of_worship is IMO to be taken literally: it is about worshipping (mosque, church, temple, synagogue, ...) and not about church as institution and their property. Looking at your example I agree that it is probably appropriate there, because the whole sanctuary is the place of worship (and the single churches will then be other pow inside the big one?). cheers, Martin Maybe we need a landuse=institutional or landuse=religious to tag these things. I simply applied amenity=place_of_worship to the whole grounds since I couldn't tag the land with anything else remotely appropriate. The Santuario is the whole place and not just the one specific building where services are held. Move the discussion to the tagging mailing list? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship
The landuse=religious seems like a good compromise. Landuse=institutional seems a bit too generic, as there are so many different types of institutions. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship From :mailto:sea...@gmail.com Date :Fri Aug 20 21:38:06 America/Chicago 2010 On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 7:42 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/8/20 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com mailto:sea...@gmail.com : You're being too literal with worship part of place_of_worship. We have highway=steps and stairways are definitely not highways. Amenity=place_of_worship is IMO to be taken literally: it is about worshipping (mosque, church, temple, synagogue, ...) and not about church as institution and their property. Looking at your example I agree that it is probably appropriate there, because the whole sanctuary is the place of worship (and the single churches will then be other pow inside the big one?). cheers, Martin Maybe we need a landuse=institutional or landuse=religious to tag these things. I simply applied amenity=place_of_worship to the whole grounds since I couldn't tag the land with anything else remotely appropriate. The Santuario is the whole place and not just the one specific building where services are held. Move the discussion to the tagging mailing list? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship
I'm not sure in other jurisdictions, but in government land use maps I've seen, there is usually an institutional land use category. Maybe for the land use planning purposes of the government, it doesn't make sense to differentiate the different types of institutions. In OSM, I guess we could break it down. On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 10:53 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.comwrote: The landuse=religious seems like a good compromise. Landuse=institutional seems a bit too generic, as there are so many different types of institutions. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship From :mailto:sea...@gmail.com Date :Fri Aug 20 21:38:06 America/Chicago 2010 On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 7:42 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/8/20 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com mailto:sea...@gmail.com : You're being too literal with worship part of place_of_worship. We have highway=steps and stairways are definitely not highways. Amenity=place_of_worship is IMO to be taken literally: it is about worshipping (mosque, church, temple, synagogue, ...) and not about church as institution and their property. Looking at your example I agree that it is probably appropriate there, because the whole sanctuary is the place of worship (and the single churches will then be other pow inside the big one?). cheers, Martin Maybe we need a landuse=institutional or landuse=religious to tag these things. I simply applied amenity=place_of_worship to the whole grounds since I couldn't tag the land with anything else remotely appropriate. The Santuario is the whole place and not just the one specific building where services are held. Move the discussion to the tagging mailing list? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship
2010/8/19 Pierre-Alain Dorange: For convent, monestary and generally religious place but not open to the public there is no official tag. I just found a proposition (2) to tag building=convent, building=monastery, buiding=seminary and even a building=church (?)... There is also a historic=monastery (3) but it seems to apply only to old monastery not used nowday... I asked a similar question last week on the Dutch list. My question was how to tag a former church that is not used as a church anymore. There the answer was they tag them as building=church. Now I see there is a historic-tag, so maybe that is a better one to use. On the wiki historic=church is not mentioned, but could fall under building=User defined. Another question would be how the renderers handle those tags, because you would like to have them on the map as church because of the looks of the building. For most people the function of the building is irrelevant and just say go left at the church. Regards, Frank ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship
Am 19.08.2010 21:39, schrieb Frank Fesevur: 2010/8/19 Pierre-Alain Dorange: For convent, monestary and generally religious place but not open to the public there is no official tag. I just found a proposition (2) to tag building=convent, building=monastery, buiding=seminary and even a building=church (?)... There is also a historic=monastery (3) but it seems to apply only to old monastery not used nowday... I asked a similar question last week on the Dutch list. My question was how to tag a former church that is not used as a church anymore. There the answer was they tag them as building=church. As I would understand it ... building=church tells you about the building. place_of_worship tells you about the usage. Now I see there is a historic-tag, so maybe that is a better one to use. On the wiki historic=church is not mentioned, but could fall under building=User defined. historic=church tells you that it has some historic value. I wouldn't use this for a church that is e.g. just 40 years old and is no longer used for religious purposes now. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship: wayside crosses
Christoph Eckert wrote: There was some discussion about this on the list last month, (in a thread that started by talking about the Icon tag), and there is now a proposed tag as wayside_cross (there is also wayside_shrine). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/wayside_cross I think tag k='wayside' v='true' for place_of_worship of *any* religion would fit best. If such a tag is present then the name should not be required. There could also be, however I don't think it would be usefull enough to justify yet another tag, a 'form' tag which says if it is a cross, shrine (chapel), obelisk or anything else. BTW, I ve just came back from a countryside where I did some mapping, compare http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.9763lon=20.4518zoom=13layers=B0FT and http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.9763lon=20.4518zoom=13layers=0BFT and there is a lot of these, un-mapped yet but, nothing's lost ;) -- Było mi bardzo miło. Czwarta pospolita klęska, [...] Łukasz Już nie katolicka lecz złodziejska. (c)PP Wyjatkowe pioro Andrzeja Mleczki! Licytuj! http://link.interia.pl/f1cf8 begin:vcard fn;quoted-printable:=C5=81ukasz Stelmach n;quoted-printable:Stelmach;=C5=81ukasz email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship: wayside crosses
Hi, You also find them in the Eichsfeld (Duderstadt/Heiligenstadt) and, maybe, around Hildesheim (that's south of Hanover). Both are regions with a high percentage of roman-catholic people. I bet you'll find them in other catholic regions as well. BTW: you'll even find wayside_shrines in Greece, which isn't that catholic :) . Best regards, ce ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship: wayside crosses
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 08:18:34PM +0100, Christoph Eckert wrote: I bet you'll find them in other catholic regions as well. BTW: you'll even find wayside_shrines in Greece, which isn't that catholic :) . Oh, but it is./unhelpful_pedant (second point of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic ) s -- http://www.gowerpower.org.uk/henry/ --new baby! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship: wayside crosses
Hi, There was some discussion about this on the list last month, (in a thread that started by talking about the Icon tag), and there is now a proposed tag as wayside_cross (there is also wayside_shrine). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/wayside_cross ah, thanks for the pointer (and sorry I missed it). Wayside crosses are not common in English speaking areas. Well, people put small white crosses up were people died in car accidents, but that's not the same thing. Yes, we also have them, but it's not the same. Wayside crosses seem to be a speciality in southern de, at and Alsace. Cheers, ce ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship: wayside crosses
Yes, we also have them, but it's not the same. Wayside crosses seem to be a speciality in southern de, at and Alsace. You also find them in the Eichsfeld (Duderstadt/Heiligenstadt) and, maybe, around Hildesheim (that's south of Hanover). Both are regions with a high percentage of roman-catholic people. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship: wayside crosses
Stephen Hope wrote: There was some discussion about this on the list last month, (in a thread that started by talking about the Icon tag), and there is now a proposed tag as wayside_cross (there is also wayside_shrine). A wayside cross is generally very much not a wayside shrine, of course :-) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Place of worship: wayside crosses
Christoph, There was some discussion about this on the list last month, (in a thread that started by talking about the Icon tag), and there is now a proposed tag as wayside_cross (there is also wayside_shrine). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/wayside_cross Wayside crosses are not common in English speaking areas. Well, people put small white crosses up were people died in car accidents, but that's not the same thing. Stephen On 04/02/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Hi, on the german list one inhabitant wondered how to name a proposal for wayside crosses: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croix_monumentale How do you call them in english speaking countries? What would you recommend for a proposal? An additional tag for place_of_worship or an tag of its own? Thanks best regards, ce ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
