Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Lester Caine]

On 14/03/16 20:18, Neil Matthews wrote:
> P.S. Which building is the pub?
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.45246/-2.42691

http://developments.southglos.gov.uk/online-applications/files/6FA7555C98FA66267FE1EC868218327D/pdf/PK11_2312_LB-SITE_LOCATION_PLAN-4150384.pdf

I would be looking to update the site outline to match that planning
application, but of cause the 'OS' factor comes into play :( But one can
at least pick up dates of the buildings construction from the Listed
Building registration.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Neil Matthews]

I'd argue all approaches can be considered correct from the wiki:
"Add a node at the centre of the pub and add amenity=pub to it. ... If 
the whole building is used for this feature and its footprint is present 
in OSM, you can apply the tags on the area if you prefer."
Area obviously applies to "the whole building" but some might read it 
differently :-)


If you're using the whole area style and there are elements, e.g. 
roads,  that don't belong to it then the whole area needs to be split 
into pieces and use a site relation -- like schools?


You also need to "layer" in landuse retail on the "site" that actually 
has the retail portion, and not the car park.


The building probably should be tagged as building=retail? Or 
building=pub? Or both?


Cheers,
Neil

P.S. Which building is the pub? 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.45246/-2.42691 / 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.45395/-2.43063


On 14/03/2016 19:51, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote:

A quick query on IRC and Andy (SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this way


True, but not with a zealous committment to it "absolutely being the 
best way".  I'm open to persuasion.


Part of the reason might be that I'm probably more likely to sit in 
the beer garden than most people (as evidenced by the mapping trip to 
Consall Forge where my suggestion that we sit outside was met with 
disbelieving "are you mad?" looks from all around). Another is that 
I've tended to map the entire site of other businesses - see for 
example http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/241928696 , which is a large 
site surrounded by a fence - it's very clear what's part of the car 
dealership and what is not.


To take a deliberately problematic example 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374419244 - how would you map them if 
you weren't going to map the whole area as the pub?  How would you say 
that http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374419080 and 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374419082 belong to the pub? That's 
"deliberately problematic" because clearly a section of road there 
isn't owned by the pub.


Maybe if people have got better suggestions they could show how they'd 
do it by editing at 
http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.87134/-3.24177 (on the 
dev server, preferably after dragging the imagery to one side so that 
other people can also have a go)?


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Andy Townsend]

On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote:

A quick query on IRC and Andy (SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this way


True, but not with a zealous committment to it "absolutely being the 
best way".  I'm open to persuasion.


Part of the reason might be that I'm probably more likely to sit in the 
beer garden than most people (as evidenced by the mapping trip to 
Consall Forge where my suggestion that we sit outside was met with 
disbelieving "are you mad?" looks from all around).  Another is that 
I've tended to map the entire site of other businesses - see for example 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/241928696 , which is a large site 
surrounded by a fence - it's very clear what's part of the car 
dealership and what is not.


To take a deliberately problematic example 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374419244 - how would you map them if 
you weren't going to map the whole area as the pub?  How would you say 
that http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374419080 and 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374419082 belong to the pub? That's 
"deliberately problematic" because clearly a section of road there isn't 
owned by the pub.


Maybe if people have got better suggestions they could show how they'd 
do it by editing at 
http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.87134/-3.24177 (on the dev 
server, preferably after dragging the imagery to one side so that other 
people can also have a go)?


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Lester Caine]

On 14/03/16 15:08, Dave F wrote:
>>   * Where do we place tags associated with the pub premises which may
>> apply also to other parts of the pub property (an obvious one
>> would be opening_hours).
> 
> I'm unsure how common that would be, but it could go on the boundary as
> the garden might be used for each instance.

Just as with the school 'element' we have an amenity tag at the higher
level, then a pub or any other establishment would have the same
approach. As I have already said, and area within another structure can
then be tagged as the various amenities, but there may be larger areas
such as building=shopping_mall or food_court where the pub, cafe or the
like shares the overall facilities, but has perhaps a combination of
covered and open seating areas. There may well be separate 'opening
times' for each area in which case those tags are omitted at the higher
level.

While mapping the school areas, adjacent pubs/restaurants/halls and the
like followed on nicely in the same style.

Some areas of the world with little detail would benefit from a simple
node describing the amenity, but certainly within the UK we are now
adding the service roads and access ways to the various parking areas
used by these facilities. If the amenity is only accessible by foot,
then the footpath routes from the adjacent car park would be useful, but
still a work in progress. For the majority of the sites I've added this
year, the route into the car park and the access restrictions are
documented. In many cases while there are access road into a school it
is not leading to parking which may in fact be a shared adjacent space
such as the village hall ... and in village locations it may be that the
pub is also sharing that parking area, in which case the boundary may be
difficult to identify fully, at which point the building boundary may
well be the fall back 'amenity' boundary.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Dave F]

On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote:

Earlier today browsing Pascal Neis summary of changesets


This is new to me. Is there a way find all changesets with my locale?


The disadvantages, at least to my mind, are:

  * Non-intuitive. Certainly I have never thought of mapping pubs this
way, although I can see the point. I doubt that a newcomer to OSM
would find this the straightforwardly obvious approach.



Discovering many new things are often "Non-intuitive" & doesn't 
necessarily make them wrong. Given time to sink in they often become 
'normal'



  * Pubs are licensed premises. The premises licensed usually relate
to the building.



If that were true then wouldn't the beer garden need a separate license?


  * Where do we place tags associated with the pub premises which may
apply also to other parts of the pub property (an obvious one
would be opening_hours).



I'm unsure how common that would be, but it could go on the boundary as 
the garden might be used for each instance.



  * Peculiar rendering. In this case a pub icon in a car park. Even if
we fully accept "not tagging for the renderer", let's consider how
we can tell renderers to improve icon placement. Andy suggested on
IRC a label node, but this implies a relation: do we want to
replace a simple node &/or area tag with a node, an area & a
relation? And then ask the Carto-CSS team to deal with it? It
seems to me that this pushes the bar too high not just for
inexperienced mappers but also those of us who have been at it for
a while. In the meantime the CartoCSS rendering will look rather
daft in such cases.



A location tag was discussed a few years ago, unsure why it didn't catch 
on. It wouldn't need to be a relation, just a sub-tag of co-ordinates on 
the boundary way. It wouldn't be compulsory, if the co-ords weren't 
supplied, it would render centrally as it does now. All polygon 
entities, such as schools, hospitals etc. render centrally in precisely 
the same manner. In OSM things are only difficult to do if their not 
explained clearly. Good wiki descriptions are essential.



  * Consistency. In general pubs will get mapped initially as nodes
over the pub building, and attributes on a node easily transfer to
a building outline + (usually) building=pub. In particular the
node & area centroid will tend to be very close. Thus the two
different ways of mapping relate to each other in a clear way.



As has been pointed out by others, mapping pubs this way will make it 
consistent with the tagging of other objects.


landuse=retail shouldn't be used for individual properties. It also 
doesn't link the entities together.


I don't see the centroid of the area being offset from the building as a 
problem for postcode location or routing.


IMO places of worship should also have an boundary tag to encompass all 
ancillary objects operated by the organisation, but that's for another 
discussion



Cheers
Dave F.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[John Aldridge]

On 14-Mar-16 10:43, Stuart Reynolds wrote:

The one pub that I plotted, I added when I was doing a couple of nearby
schools and noticed that it was missing. I used exactly the same
principle as for the schools - an outer “amenity=pub”  polygon and an
inner “building=pub” for the actual building.


Sounds good to me... similarly for restaurants which have their own 
car-park and perhaps outdoor seating area?


--
Cheers,
John

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Dave F]

+1
This corroborates what I said on the changeset & how I mapped it.

Dave F.

On 14/03/2016 10:43, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
The one pub that I plotted, I added when I was doing a couple of 
nearby schools and noticed that it was missing. I used exactly the 
same principle as for the schools - an outer “amenity=pub”  polygon 
and an inner “building=pub” for the actual building.


http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389684953

Personally, I think that this is fine. The fact that the pub icon sits 
in the garden is hardly the end of the world, and the garden _is_ part 
of the pub after all. And I bet if you turned up at the location you’d 
be able to spot where the pub was :)


My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that there is way too much 
inconsistency in the way that things get mapped in OSM which makes it 
difficult to understand the data. Country pubs, in particular, will 
often have car parks & gardens as well as the physical building, and 
using an enclosing polygon is surely the right way to make sure that 
they are all kept together - and using a style of data that then 
compares directly to other amenities like schools, hospitals, parks …


Cheers
Stuart


On 14 Mar 2016, at 10:26, Jez Nicholson > wrote:


I normally plot and tag a pub building as an area. I've noticed a few 
points appearing for existing pubs. They may be coming from the new 
OSM online editing programs.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 at 22:48, Neil Matthews > wrote:


It's not my preferred style -- I prefer to draw the building and
tag that. I'd expect to put the name and address on the building too!

If I tag a large area, then there's a high likelihood that it'll
adversely affect routing. Conversely tagging large areas makes
the map look more complete.

However, if I can't rely on a rendering to help me locate a
public house (emphasis on the house :-) accurately on a map,
especially at the end of a long day mapping, then that doesn't
rely help. And since I use mapnik renderings and OSMAnd+ it's
important that they work well -- especially as that way I find
other non-obvious issues.

Schools are somewhat different in that they aren't generally open
to the public -- it's probably more important to map the
entrances on the perimeter -- as more and more schools are
fencing kids in and public out.

But maybe we should use bar to mean where you actually get
served? And pub for the whole area.

Cheers,
Neil


On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote:

Earlier today browsing Pascal Neis summary of changesets I
noticed a comment about reverting a duplicate pub node, and
glanced at the changeset
.

The pub had indeed been added again (and subsequently removed).
However what caught my attention was that the amenity=pub tag
had been applied to the entire area of the pub grounds (car
park, buildings etc.). A quick query on IRC and Andy
(SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this way, however rarely with as
much detail as this particular one. The general alternative is
to map pubs as areas on the building of the pub.

The obvious advantages of mapping the entire area of the pub
property are largely to do with the immediate association of car
parks, beer gardens, children's playgrounds with the pub and
thus ready interpretation of things like access tags and
resolution as to which car park belongs to the pub. This
approach is clearly less cumbersome than using a relation, such
as associatedCarpark (invented I believe by Gregory Williams in
Kent).

The disadvantages, at least to my mind, are:

  * Non-intuitive. Certainly I have never thought of mapping
pubs this way, although I can see the point. I doubt that a
newcomer to OSM would find this the straightforwardly
obvious approach.
  * Pubs are licensed premises. The premises licensed usually
relate to the building.
  * Where do we place tags associated with the pub premises
which may apply also to other parts of the pub property (an
obvious one would be opening_hours).
  * Peculiar rendering. In this case a pub icon in a car park.
Even if we fully accept "not tagging for the renderer",
let's consider how we can tell renderers to improve icon
placement. Andy suggested on IRC a label node, but this
implies a relation: do we want to replace a simple node &/or
area tag with a node, an area & a relation? And then ask the
Carto-CSS team to deal with it? It seems to me that this
pushes the bar too high not just for inexperienced mappers
but also those of us who have been at it for a while. In the
meantime the CartoCSS rendering will look rather daft in
such cases.
  * 

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Colin Smale]

Can I make a plea to keep away from using landuse polygons for this, as
SK53 suggested in the original post? In town centres, pubs are often
just a "shop" in a row of shops; they are therefore already in a
landuse=retail polygon. Having to have an island of landuse=retail
within the larger retail area so it can carry a particular tag is going
to get messy, and I don't see why urban and rural pubs should be tagged
differently.

//colin 

On 2016-03-14 11:43, Stuart Reynolds wrote:

> The one pub that I plotted, I added when I was doing a couple of nearby 
> schools and noticed that it was missing. I used exactly the same principle as 
> for the schools - an outer "amenity=pub"  polygon and an inner "building=pub" 
> for the actual building. 
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389684953 
> 
> Personally, I think that this is fine. The fact that the pub icon sits in the 
> garden is hardly the end of the world, and the garden _is_ part of the pub 
> after all. And I bet if you turned up at the location you'd be able to spot 
> where the pub was :) 
> 
> My opinion, for what it's worth, is that there is way too much inconsistency 
> in the way that things get mapped in OSM which makes it difficult to 
> understand the data. Country pubs, in particular, will often have car parks & 
> gardens as well as the physical building, and using an enclosing polygon is 
> surely the right way to make sure that they are all kept together - and using 
> a style of data that then compares directly to other amenities like schools, 
> hospitals, parks ... 
> 
> Cheers 
> Stuart 
> 
> On 14 Mar 2016, at 10:26, Jez Nicholson  wrote: 
> I normally plot and tag a pub building as an area. I've noticed a few points 
> appearing for existing pubs. They may be coming from the new OSM online 
> editing programs.
> 
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 at 22:48, Neil Matthews  wrote: 
> It's not my preferred style -- I prefer to draw the building and tag that. 
> I'd expect to put the name and address on the building too!
> 
> If I tag a large area, then there's a high likelihood that it'll adversely 
> affect routing. Conversely tagging large areas makes the map look more 
> complete.
> 
> However, if I can't rely on a rendering to help me locate a public house 
> (emphasis on the house :-) accurately on a map, especially at the end of a 
> long day mapping, then that doesn't rely help. And since I use mapnik 
> renderings and OSMAnd+ it's important that they work well -- especially as 
> that way I find other non-obvious issues.
> 
> Schools are somewhat different in that they aren't generally open to the 
> public -- it's probably more important to map the entrances on the perimeter 
> -- as more and more schools are fencing kids in and public out.
> 
> But maybe we should use bar to mean where you actually get served? And pub 
> for the whole area.
> 
> Cheers,
> Neil 
> 
> On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote: 
> 
> Earlier today browsing Pascal Neis summary of changesets I noticed a comment 
> about reverting a duplicate pub node, and glanced at the changeset [1].
> 
> The pub had indeed been added again (and subsequently removed). However what 
> caught my attention was that the amenity=pub tag had been applied to the 
> entire area of the pub grounds (car park, buildings etc.). A quick query on 
> IRC and Andy (SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this way, however rarely with as 
> much detail as this particular one. The general alternative is to map pubs as 
> areas on the building of the pub.
> 
> The obvious advantages of mapping the entire area of the pub property are 
> largely to do with the immediate association of car parks, beer gardens, 
> children's playgrounds with the pub and thus ready interpretation of things 
> like access tags and resolution as to which car park belongs to the pub. This 
> approach is clearly less cumbersome than using a relation, such as 
> associatedCarpark (invented I believe by Gregory Williams in Kent).
> 
> The disadvantages, at least to my mind, are:
> 
> * Non-intuitive. Certainly I have never thought of mapping pubs this way, 
> although I can see the point. I doubt that a newcomer to OSM would find this 
> the straightforwardly obvious approach.
> * Pubs are licensed premises. The premises licensed usually relate to the 
> building.
> * Where do we place tags associated with the pub premises which may apply 
> also to other parts of the pub property (an obvious one would be 
> opening_hours).
> * Peculiar rendering. In this case a pub icon in a car park. Even if we fully 
> accept "not tagging for the renderer", let's consider how we can tell 
> renderers to improve icon placement. Andy suggested on IRC a label node, but 
> this implies a relation: do we want to replace a simple node &/or area tag 
> with a node, an area & a relation? And then ask the Carto-CSS team to deal 
> with it? It seems to me that this pushes the bar too high not just for 
> inexperienced 

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Stuart Reynolds]

The one pub that I plotted, I added when I was doing a couple of nearby schools 
and noticed that it was missing. I used exactly the same principle as for the 
schools - an outer “amenity=pub”  polygon and an inner “building=pub” for the 
actual building.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389684953

Personally, I think that this is fine. The fact that the pub icon sits in the 
garden is hardly the end of the world, and the garden _is_ part of the pub 
after all. And I bet if you turned up at the location you’d be able to spot 
where the pub was :)

My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that there is way too much inconsistency in 
the way that things get mapped in OSM which makes it difficult to understand 
the data. Country pubs, in particular, will often have car parks & gardens as 
well as the physical building, and using an enclosing polygon is surely the 
right way to make sure that they are all kept together - and using a style of 
data that then compares directly to other amenities like schools, hospitals, 
parks …

Cheers
Stuart


On 14 Mar 2016, at 10:26, Jez Nicholson 
> wrote:

I normally plot and tag a pub building as an area. I've noticed a few points 
appearing for existing pubs. They may be coming from the new OSM online editing 
programs.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 at 22:48, Neil Matthews 
> wrote:
It's not my preferred style -- I prefer to draw the building and tag that. I'd 
expect to put the name and address on the building too!

If I tag a large area, then there's a high likelihood that it'll adversely 
affect routing. Conversely tagging large areas makes the map look more complete.

However, if I can't rely on a rendering to help me locate a public house 
(emphasis on the house :-) accurately on a map, especially at the end of a long 
day mapping, then that doesn't rely help. And since I use mapnik renderings and 
OSMAnd+ it's important that they work well -- especially as that way I find 
other non-obvious issues.

Schools are somewhat different in that they aren't generally open to the public 
-- it's probably more important to map the entrances on the perimeter -- as 
more and more schools are fencing kids in and public out.

But maybe we should use bar to mean where you actually get served? And pub for 
the whole area.

Cheers,
Neil


On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote:
Earlier today browsing Pascal Neis summary of changesets I noticed a comment 
about reverting a duplicate pub node, and glanced at the 
changeset.

The pub had indeed been added again (and subsequently removed). However what 
caught my attention was that the amenity=pub tag had been applied to the entire 
area of the pub grounds (car park, buildings etc.). A quick query on IRC and 
Andy (SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this way, however rarely with as much detail 
as this particular one. The general alternative is to map pubs as areas on the 
building of the pub.

The obvious advantages of mapping the entire area of the pub property are 
largely to do with the immediate association of car parks, beer gardens, 
children's playgrounds with the pub and thus ready interpretation of things 
like access tags and resolution as to which car park belongs to the pub. This 
approach is clearly less cumbersome than using a relation, such as 
associatedCarpark (invented I believe by Gregory Williams in Kent).

The disadvantages, at least to my mind, are:

  *   Non-intuitive. Certainly I have never thought of mapping pubs this way, 
although I can see the point. I doubt that a newcomer to OSM would find this 
the straightforwardly obvious approach.
  *   Pubs are licensed premises. The premises licensed usually relate to the 
building.
  *   Where do we place tags associated with the pub premises which may apply 
also to other parts of the pub property (an obvious one would be opening_hours).
  *   Peculiar rendering. In this case a pub icon in a car park. Even if we 
fully accept "not tagging for the renderer", let's consider how we can tell 
renderers to improve icon placement. Andy suggested on IRC a label node, but 
this implies a relation: do we want to replace a simple node &/or area tag with 
a node, an area & a relation? And then ask the Carto-CSS team to deal with it? 
It seems to me that this pushes the bar too high not just for inexperienced 
mappers but also those of us who have been at it for a while. In the meantime 
the CartoCSS rendering will look rather daft in such cases.
  *   Consistency. In general pubs will get mapped initially as nodes over the 
pub building, and attributes on a node easily transfer to a building outline + 
(usually) building=pub. In particular the node & area centroid will tend to be 
very close. Thus the two different ways of mapping relate to each other in a 
clear way.

This issue of course is more general than pubs. For instance we map schools, 

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Jez Nicholson]

I normally plot and tag a pub building as an area. I've noticed a few
points appearing for existing pubs. They may be coming from the new OSM
online editing programs.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 at 22:48, Neil Matthews  wrote:

> It's not my preferred style -- I prefer to draw the building and tag that.
> I'd expect to put the name and address on the building too!
>
> If I tag a large area, then there's a high likelihood that it'll adversely
> affect routing. Conversely tagging large areas makes the map look more
> complete.
>
> However, if I can't rely on a rendering to help me locate a public house
> (emphasis on the house :-) accurately on a map, especially at the end of a
> long day mapping, then that doesn't rely help. And since I use mapnik
> renderings and OSMAnd+ it's important that they work well -- especially as
> that way I find other non-obvious issues.
>
> Schools are somewhat different in that they aren't generally open to the
> public -- it's probably more important to map the entrances on the
> perimeter -- as more and more schools are fencing kids in and public out.
>
> But maybe we should use bar to mean where you actually get served? And pub
> for the whole area.
>
> Cheers,
> Neil
>
>
> On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote:
>
> Earlier today browsing Pascal Neis summary of changesets I noticed a
> comment about reverting a duplicate pub node, and glanced at the changeset
> .
>
> The pub had indeed been added again (and subsequently removed). However
> what caught my attention was that the amenity=pub tag had been applied to
> the entire area of the pub grounds (car park, buildings etc.). A quick
> query on IRC and Andy (SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this way, however rarely
> with as much detail as this particular one. The general alternative is to
> map pubs as areas on the building of the pub.
>
> The obvious advantages of mapping the entire area of the pub property are
> largely to do with the immediate association of car parks, beer gardens,
> children's playgrounds with the pub and thus ready interpretation of things
> like access tags and resolution as to which car park belongs to the pub.
> This approach is clearly less cumbersome than using a relation, such as
> associatedCarpark (invented I believe by Gregory Williams in Kent).
>
> The disadvantages, at least to my mind, are:
>
>- Non-intuitive. Certainly I have never thought of mapping pubs this
>way, although I can see the point. I doubt that a newcomer to OSM would
>find this the straightforwardly obvious approach.
>- Pubs are licensed premises. The premises licensed usually relate to
>the building.
>- Where do we place tags associated with the pub premises which may
>apply also to other parts of the pub property (an obvious one would be
>opening_hours).
>- Peculiar rendering. In this case a pub icon in a car park. Even if
>we fully accept "not tagging for the renderer", let's consider how we can
>tell renderers to improve icon placement. Andy suggested on IRC a label
>node, but this implies a relation: do we want to replace a simple node &/or
>area tag with a node, an area & a relation? And then ask the Carto-CSS team
>to deal with it? It seems to me that this pushes the bar too high not just
>for inexperienced mappers but also those of us who have been at it for a
>while. In the meantime the CartoCSS rendering will look rather daft in such
>cases.
>- Consistency. In general pubs will get mapped initially as nodes over
>the pub building, and attributes on a node easily transfer to a building
>outline + (usually) building=pub. In particular the node & area centroid
>will tend to be very close. Thus the two different ways of mapping relate
>to each other in a clear way.
>
> This issue of course is more general than pubs. For instance we map
> schools, colleges, universities and hospitals as areas and place all the
> relevant tags on the area. Churches & other places of worship, on the other
> hand, tend to have the amenity tag placed on the building. (This makes
> sense as in many cases it is the building which is the place of worship not
> the grounds). Also, I certainly will map a supermarket as the building
> rather than the whole area including car parks, petrol stations etc.
>
> Obviously I prefer for supermarkets, places of worship and pubs that the
> area mapped should be the building. However I can equally see that there
> are certain issues which are otherwise intractable where mapping the whole
> area offers some advantages.
>
> One approach which would reflect my own mapping approach would be to tag
> the complete area associated with the pub as landuse=retail, with a tag
> such as retail=pub. This would require no more additional OSM elements than
> used at the moment, and would provide for the identification of
> associations with car parks etc (and would work fine with 

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Neil Matthews]

It's not my preferred style -- I prefer to draw the building and tag 
that. I'd expect to put the name and address on the building too!


If I tag a large area, then there's a high likelihood that it'll 
adversely affect routing. Conversely tagging large areas makes the map 
look more complete.


However, if I can't rely on a rendering to help me locate a public house 
(emphasis on the house :-) accurately on a map, especially at the end of 
a long day mapping, then that doesn't rely help. And since I use mapnik 
renderings and OSMAnd+ it's important that they work well -- especially 
as that way I find other non-obvious issues.


Schools are somewhat different in that they aren't generally open to the 
public -- it's probably more important to map the entrances on the 
perimeter -- as more and more schools are fencing kids in and public out.


But maybe we should use bar to mean where you actually get served? And 
pub for the whole area.


Cheers,
Neil

On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote:
Earlier today browsing Pascal Neis summary of changesets I noticed a 
comment about reverting a duplicate pub node, and glanced at the 
changeset .


The pub had indeed been added again (and subsequently removed). 
However what caught my attention was that the amenity=pub tag had been 
applied to the entire area of the pub grounds (car park, buildings 
etc.). A quick query on IRC and Andy (SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this 
way, however rarely with as much detail as this particular one. The 
general alternative is to map pubs as areas on the building of the pub.


The obvious advantages of mapping the entire area of the pub property 
are largely to do with the immediate association of car parks, beer 
gardens, children's playgrounds with the pub and thus ready 
interpretation of things like access tags and resolution as to which 
car park belongs to the pub. This approach is clearly less cumbersome 
than using a relation, such as associatedCarpark (invented I believe 
by Gregory Williams in Kent).


The disadvantages, at least to my mind, are:

  * Non-intuitive. Certainly I have never thought of mapping pubs this
way, although I can see the point. I doubt that a newcomer to OSM
would find this the straightforwardly obvious approach.
  * Pubs are licensed premises. The premises licensed usually relate
to the building.
  * Where do we place tags associated with the pub premises which may
apply also to other parts of the pub property (an obvious one
would be opening_hours).
  * Peculiar rendering. In this case a pub icon in a car park. Even if
we fully accept "not tagging for the renderer", let's consider how
we can tell renderers to improve icon placement. Andy suggested on
IRC a label node, but this implies a relation: do we want to
replace a simple node &/or area tag with a node, an area & a
relation? And then ask the Carto-CSS team to deal with it? It
seems to me that this pushes the bar too high not just for
inexperienced mappers but also those of us who have been at it for
a while. In the meantime the CartoCSS rendering will look rather
daft in such cases.
  * Consistency. In general pubs will get mapped initially as nodes
over the pub building, and attributes on a node easily transfer to
a building outline + (usually) building=pub. In particular the
node & area centroid will tend to be very close. Thus the two
different ways of mapping relate to each other in a clear way.

This issue of course is more general than pubs. For instance we map 
schools, colleges, universities and hospitals as areas and place all 
the relevant tags on the area. Churches & other places of worship, on 
the other hand, tend to have the amenity tag placed on the building. 
(This makes sense as in many cases it is the building which is the 
place of worship not the grounds). Also, I certainly will map a 
supermarket as the building rather than the whole area including car 
parks, petrol stations etc.


Obviously I prefer for supermarkets, places of worship and pubs that 
the area mapped should be the building. However I can equally see that 
there are certain issues which are otherwise intractable where mapping 
the whole area offers some advantages.


One approach which would reflect my own mapping approach would be to 
tag the complete area associated with the pub as landuse=retail, with 
a tag such as retail=pub. This would require no more additional OSM 
elements than used at the moment, and would provide for the 
identification of associations with car parks etc (and would work fine 
with multipolygons for pubs where the car park is across the road or 
otherwise removed from the pub.


This is an example of how as more stuff gets mapped different styles 
evolve. Neither is specifically wrong or right, but it would be nice 
if we could find a consistent style which satisfies most needs.


Cheers,

Jerry

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Lester Caine]

On 11/03/16 17:26, SK53 wrote:
> Obviously I prefer for supermarkets, places of worship and pubs that the
> area mapped should be the building. However I can equally see that there
> are certain issues which are otherwise intractable where mapping the
> whole area offers some advantages.

Having just spent 2 months mapping schools I can see the logic of
something which seemed a problem previously. The tools do not yet fully
follow this style of tagging, but it is the ideal approach.

SITE
Area
amenity=pub
Details for the pub are at this level.

Within the site ...
parking, play areas, buildings and so on can be mapped and tagged, with
building=pub and other details.

Replace amenity=pub with school, collage, hospital and so on and each
area can be properly mapped.

Where an amenity is within another larger area such as a shopping mall
then the 'amenity' may well be an area within a larger building so
having the same tags for amenity and building makes perfect sense. Now
we just need the tools to add back in the links between the larger area
amenity and it's components?

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb