[Tagging] how to tag small parts of buildings

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

While mapping a medieval village I have found some features I would like to map 
but am not aware of established tags for them.

These features are generally parts of building facades, for example 

- inscriptions, often initials of former proprietors or restoration dates. 
Sometimes these are engraved in stone frames of doors, or they are engraved 
into stones that are inserted into the facade
- particular (original historic) architectonic elements, e.g. a mullioned 
window in a house 
- other stone parts in the facade (spoils), e.g. consoles, sculptural artwork 
(e.g. statues holding architectonic elements like oriels, etc.)


as these are parts of the facade and I would like to store their position as 
well, I don't want to add them as properties to the buildings themselves. 
Rather they could be ways or nodes, according to their size.


I am interested to learn if someone has already mapped something similar and 
with which tags, or what you think would be a good representation.


Should I invent a new key facade:part=* ?
Or better use the historic key?

Cheers,
Martin 

sent from a phone
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] office=therapist??

[John Willis]

Javbw

> On Apr 14, 2017, at 4:42 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> Looking through the current list of documented office values I came across so 
> that really sound odd to me, e.g.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aoffice%3Dtherapist
> 
> wouldn't this be much better suited for the amenity tag?
> 
> cheers,
> Martin 
> 
> sent from a phone
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

I'm guessing it is a catch-all for offices (businesses) of therapists, 
psychologists, and other guidance/counselor people. 

Therapists have offices, so perhaps similar to shop=* , people are using 
office=* to define various companies that you would find in building=office, 
similar building=retail, because the idea of "amenity" can be really confusing 
and is full of all kinds of things now...  

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

[Tagging] office=therapist??

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Looking through the current list of documented office values I came across so 
that really sound odd to me, e.g.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aoffice%3Dtherapist

wouldn't this be much better suited for the amenity tag?

cheers,
Martin 

sent from a phone___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Quonset hut

[Rene]

First of all, thanks for this discussion guys!

In addition to Martin I think Wolfgang has the best way to tag a 
building and what's inside of it. So let's assume you want to tag a very 
cheap restaurant inside an old Quonset hut the tags will be: 
amenity=restaurant, building=quonset_hut and 
food=bad_don't_spend_your_money_here :-)


One problem though, the key:building wiki needs an extra quonset_hut 
description and picture for future reference.


Rene


Op 13-4-2017 om 18:12 schreef Wolfgang Zenker:

* Michał Brzozowski  [170413 16:41]:

I don't see how going from "typology" you conclude it's strictly about
form. Typology is about types, not saying with respect to what.
When you look at top building values in Taginfo, it's clear to me
these state purpose (house, residential, garage, apartments,
industrial, school and so on), with only exception being hut, other
non-purpose values from the first page are in fact non-buildings
(roof).

I'm in between here: building typology would depend on the original
purpose of the building, but that would not necessary still be the
current purpose of the building. So, if a building had originally
been constructed as a church and is built in the style of a church,
but is now used as a restaurant, it would be tagged amenity=restaurant,
building=church.

Wolfgang
(lyx@osm)

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



---
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

[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - (office=courier)"

[muzirian]

The proposal for amenity=courier was rejected, so going on with another
suggestion office=courier.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Office%3Dcourier

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

[Tagging] mandatory restriction with via way as members

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

I have created a restriction (mandatory route) where if vehicles coming from 
way must go through a section of a trunk route before leaving it. Assume that 
an only_straight_on relation has been created with from A-C, via C-K-E (C-K-E 
is a single way but K is connected to D and J) and to E-G. In this case, is the 
vehicle allowed to do the following?

  B  D  L
  |  |  |
A-C-K-E-G
  |  |  |
  H  J  M


  1.  Go A-C-B
  2.  Go A-C-K-D
  3.  Go A-C-K-E
  4.  Go A-C-K-E-M

Michael

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

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

Re: [Tagging] Quonset hut

[Wolfgang Zenker]

* Michał Brzozowski  [170413 16:41]:
> I don't see how going from "typology" you conclude it's strictly about
> form. Typology is about types, not saying with respect to what.
> When you look at top building values in Taginfo, it's clear to me
> these state purpose (house, residential, garage, apartments,
> industrial, school and so on), with only exception being hut, other
> non-purpose values from the first page are in fact non-buildings
> (roof).

I'm in between here: building typology would depend on the original
purpose of the building, but that would not necessary still be the
current purpose of the building. So, if a building had originally
been constructed as a church and is built in the style of a church,
but is now used as a restaurant, it would be tagged amenity=restaurant,
building=church.

Wolfgang
(lyx@osm)

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

Re: [Tagging] Quonset hut

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-04-13 16:30 GMT+02:00 althio :

> I would have started with:
> building=prefabricated
> prefabricated=quonset/nissen/...
>


I think "prefabricated" could be an additional property (not necessarily
for quonset huts, where it is implicit, but for other kind of buildings
that can be prefabricated or not).

Many buildings are prefabricated, or parts of them. In a certain way, all
steel structures are prefabricated. Concrete floors and walls sometimes are
prefabricated (either as a whole, or as a kind of "lost formwork" (there's
part of the steel in and the rest gets put on site as well as the remaining
concrete).

There are prefabricated structures and sometimes there are also
prefabricated finishings (bathroom, kitchen, tiles, ...).

A prefabricated building can be an office tower, a garden shelter, a
residential tower, a house, etc. It is an orthogonal property.

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

Re: [Tagging] Quonset hut

[Michał Brzozowski]

I don't see how going from "typology" you conclude it's strictly about
form. Typology is about types, not saying with respect to what.
When you look at top building values in Taginfo, it's clear to me
these state purpose (house, residential, garage, apartments,
industrial, school and so on), with only exception being hut, other
non-purpose values from the first page are in fact non-buildings
(roof).

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> it is a long standing definition in the wiki (almost from the beginning of
> the building tag) and it is still there:
> "Buildings can simply be building=yes or use a value that describes the
> building typology, for example building=house, building=hut,
> building=garage, building=school. See building=* for a more complete list of
> options and have a look at what is actually used. "
>
> it is clear that in a project like OSM and with a key that is used millions
> of times, there will also be some outliners, but I don't think the best way
> is to encourage ignoring the standing definition. If you need a key for the
> function in a building (i.e. the current purpose), invent a different tag
> (although usually you already have this covered with amenity, man_made
> etc.).

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

Re: [Tagging] Quonset hut

[althio]

>> I like to know how to tag a Quonset or Nissen hut in OSM.

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I'd make it easy:
> building=quonset_hut
> [...]
> you can also add all the other subtags additionally, if you like, like
> building:material=steel etc.

I mostly agree.
I would have started with:
building=prefabricated
prefabricated=quonset/nissen/...

and optionally all subtags suggestions, they do seem to fit:
building:levels=0
roof:levels=1
building:material=steel/...
roof:material=steel/...
roof:shape=round
roof:orientation=along

- althio

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

Re: [Tagging] Quonset hut

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-04-13 14:52 GMT+02:00 Michał Brzozowski :

> > building=* has never been about "purpose" though, it is about
> architectural
> > type (form, shape, function, structure, etc.). The purpose is what leads
> > (amongst other criteria) to choosing an architectural type, so there is a
> > link between the two, and it seems this might be creating some confusion.
>
> I see you saying this another time, but I doubt it's as common opinion
> as you make it to appear.
>


it is a long standing definition in the wiki (almost from the beginning of
the building tag) and it is still there:
"Buildings can simply be building=yes or use a value that describes the
building typology, for example building=house, building=hut,
building=garage, building=school. See building=* for a more complete list
of options and have a look at what is actually used. "




>
> Using "purpose" for building differentiation is quite standard in
> mapping (to name a few - BDOT Polish topographic maps, all the
> different cadastre maps and so on. And that's how I've seen it used in
> OSM, too.




it is clear that in a project like OSM and with a key that is used millions
of times, there will also be some outliners, but I don't think the best way
is to encourage ignoring the standing definition. If you need a key for the
function in a building (i.e. the current purpose), invent a different tag
(although usually you already have this covered with amenity, man_made
etc.).

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

Re: [Tagging] Protected areas and nature reserves

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Koppenhoefer  writes:

> leisure=nature_reserve is a quite generic tag and suitable for any nature
> protected area, boundary=protected_area can be added additionally with
> subtags.

That's true for areas where humans are allowed to walk.   If it's a
protected area where humans are not allowed, it isn't leisure.

Arguably all of this is landuse=conservation too :-)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Quonset hut

[Michał Brzozowski]

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:

> building=* has never been about "purpose" though, it is about architectural
> type (form, shape, function, structure, etc.). The purpose is what leads
> (amongst other criteria) to choosing an architectural type, so there is a
> link between the two, and it seems this might be creating some confusion.

I see you saying this another time, but I doubt it's as common opinion
as you make it to appear.

Using "purpose" for building differentiation is quite standard in
mapping (to name a few - BDOT Polish topographic maps, all the
different cadastre maps and so on. And that's how I've seen it used in
OSM, too.

Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] Quonset hut

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-04-12 23:48 GMT+02:00 John Willis :

> I know Martin and others have talked about tagging buildings that have
> been repurposed - but a Quonset hut has always been a multipurpose
> structure, so unless there is some building:design=Quonset scheme, I am not
> sure you will have to define that it is a Quonset hut.



building=* has never been about "purpose" though, it is about architectural
type (form, shape, function, structure, etc.). The purpose is what leads
(amongst other criteria) to choosing an architectural type, so there is a
link between the two, and it seems this might be creating some confusion.

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

Re: [Tagging] Quonset hut

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-04-12 21:47 GMT+02:00 Rene :

> I like to know how to tag a Quonset or Nissen hut in OSM.



I'd make it easy:
building=quonset_hut

it is a specific term for a specific thing, even has a wikipedia lemma in
several languages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quonset_hut

If you tag it as shed made of steel, it doesn't tell you anything about
shape, size or construction specifics (prefabricated, etc.), so you
needlessly loose a lot of information.

you can also add all the other subtags additionally, if you like, like
building:material=steel etc.

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

Re: [Tagging] Protected areas and nature reserves

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-04-13 11:06 GMT+02:00 Mattias Dalkvist :

> Basically it is class 19 + 21 so perhaps a new class is in order?



you could also consider using semicolon separated multivalues like "19;21"

It could be argued that this tagging scheme is generally not well defined,
because it doesn't deal appropriately with areas that are protected for
several reasons. It could be done differently with a scheme like for
accepted payment methods.


leisure=nature_reserve is a quite generic tag and suitable for any nature
protected area, boundary=protected_area can be added additionally with
subtags. If you can't find suitable subtags to distinguish the features you
want to map, you can invent new tags which fulfill your requirements.

For reference (there is also a longer list of "additional keys" that might
be worth to look at):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area

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

[Tagging] Protected areas and nature reserves

[Mattias Dalkvist]

I need some input how to tag nature reserves. For most ones in Sweden
it is easy, the CC0 source material have a field with the IUCN class
but around 10% are classified as: "areas that can not be classified by
the IUCN system".

A natural reserve in Sweden can be created in:
"order to preserving biodiversity, maintaining and preserving valuable
natural environments or meet the needs of areas for outdoor
recreation. Areas that is needed to protect, restore or create
valuable habitats or habitats for species worth preserving may also be
declared as a nature reserve. "

So it can be ether nature, resource or cultural focused and reading
some of the decision documents they are often citing two or all three.
I can't find any suitable class on the wiki page that covers multiple
categories.

Basically it is class 19 + 21 so perhaps a new class is in order?
If people agree how do I go forward?

-- 
Dalkvist

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