Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:47 AM, joost schouppe wrote: > Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the > building=yes tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building? > My feeling is that individual buildings should be mapped. Mike

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

sent from a phone > Am 16.03.2016 um 17:12 schrieb Blake Girardot : > > Otherwise we are going to get blocks of easily mapped buildings outlined as > building just because that is a lot easier and then leave the detailed > mapping to someone else. I sometimes

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 10:37 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2016-03-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Ralph Aytoun : > >   > > At the moment I see mappers leaving blank spaces because they > > cannot identify individual buildings, either because of the > > complexity of the area

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

I am reluctant to suggest that mapping large groups of buildings as one outline is a good idea. As I said, to me it is a last resort and should be avoided at all costs. Otherwise we are going to get blocks of easily mapped buildings outlined as building just because that is a lot easier and

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

sent from a phone > Am 19.03.2016 um 15:24 schrieb Mike Thompson : > > Here is an example of what I feel should be discouraged: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/404484020 here some other examples https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/941438

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

We are really discussing two different issues here. - use of building key for buildup areas that should be landuse=residential or other landuse variants, don't think anybody disagrees that building is misplaced is such situations - use of one building outline for a complex of potentially more

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

2016-03-17 1:04 GMT+01:00 Clifford Snow : > I used to work in the telecom field. We often did lateral additions to the > building. Many times different entrances would have different addresses. yes, multiple addresses on the same building do occur, at least in some

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

2016-03-17 9:21 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale : > Is a bus shelter or a bridge a "building"? If a house is substantially > extended to create a new independent living area, at what point does that > become a new Building? a bridge is definitely not a building, a bus shelter

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

Simon Poole wrote: > IMHO we always allow and support progression from rough to more detailed. +1 Philip Barnes wrote: > Mike Thompson wrote: >> My feeling is that individual buildings should be mapped. >> > In an ideal world I would agree, but we don't live in one and in some cases > such as

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

On 03/16/2016 03:47 PM, joost schouppe wrote: Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the building=yes tag ? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building ? building=yes is a single building. I have encountered this problem a lot in Senegal. I talked with local

[Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the building=yes tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building? There is the terrace value, but that implies one orderly structure, not the hodgepodge of houses, buildings and extensions that define organically grown blocks.

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

Mike Thompson wrote: > Here is an example of what I feel should be discouraged: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/404484020 > > (given that this is part of a HOT project, it is likely to be > corrected/improved soon) > > In this case the individual buildings are clearly visible, and there is >

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

Here is an example of what I feel should be discouraged: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/404484020 (given that this is part of a HOT project, it is likely to be corrected/improved soon) In this case the individual buildings are clearly visible, and there is non-building space between them.

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

sent from a phone > Am 16.03.2016 um 15:47 schrieb joost schouppe : > > Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the building=yes > tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building? IMHO we should try to map every building as its own

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

IMHO we always allow and support progression from rough to more detailed. If actual building outlines are difficult to determine then one outline for the complex is completely OK. Typical example: medieval cities. Am 16.03.2016 um 15:47 schrieb joost schouppe: > Is it OK to map multiple

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: > In an ideal world I would agree, but we don't live in one and in some > cases such as medieval building layout it can be incredibly difficult to > work out what roofline belongs to which building. > Yes, it is often

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

2016-03-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Ralph Aytoun : > > At the moment I see mappers leaving blank spaces because they cannot > identify individual buildings, either because of the complexity of the area > or because the imagery is not sharp enough. This approach will allow them >

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

: Martin Koppenhoefer Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 8:55 AM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building 2016-03-17 1:04 GMT+01:00 Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us>: I used to work in the telecom field. We often did lateral add

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

2016-03-17 8:49 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole : > (I had to laugh at the suggested "can stand on its > own" criteria, having seen other building collapse when one in a row has > been demolished). > yes, it happens. One of the reasons is that buildings don't fly ;-) They are standing on

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

We will need a definition of "building". Some may consider a terrace of houses to be a single building. One definition I have worked with involves assessing the ability of the "building" to remain standing and usable if the "buildings" on either side were removed. If a house in the middle of a

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

Hi Joost, The main wiki entry on building tagging says this about building tagging: "In addition outlines can either be simplified shapes or very detailed outlines which conform accurately to the shape of the building. It is not uncommon for buildings to initially be described as simple group

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

I used to work in the telecom field. We often did lateral additions to the building. Many times different entrances would have different addresses. Because the buildings were different heights it is difficult to determine where one building ended and another started. For example the CenturyLink

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

On Wed Mar 16 15:03:25 2016 GMT, Mike Thompson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:47 AM, joost schouppe > wrote: > > > Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the > > building=yes tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building? > > > My

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

On 2016-03-17 08:49, Simon Poole wrote: > - use of one building outline for a complex of potentially more than one > building that are adjacent and not easily divided in to individual > component structures (I had to laugh at the suggested "can stand on its > own" criteria, having seen other

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

As Simon P says "we allow and support progression from rough to more detailed." To use your terrace example: building=yes is OK, but far from perfect building=terrace is good, but there's still room for improvement mapping each house & tagging them building=house/office etc is much better