Re: [Tagging] Ferry routes as relations?

[marc marc]

if the building is the plateform (where passager wait until the ferry is 
there), it's usefull for routing : route the pedestrian to the platform 
with a pedestrian profil, switch to the associated stop_position, route 
to the desired stop_position with the vehicule profil, switch to the 
associated platform and continue pedestrian routing

Le 24.03.19 à 03:11, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> What is the benefit of including the ferry building polygon in 
> the relation? This is the part that Indknt understand. 
> What is the use case for including this info in the relation?
> 
> Joseph
> 
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 10:40 AM marc marc wrote:
> 
> Le 24.03.19 à 00:19, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
>  > it is not clear what should be included in the relation.
>  > Certainly the ways in the relation should connect one pier
>  > to another, so that routing works properly.
> 
> as for other PT relation, it may include :
> 
> - way(s) (without role) where the ferry is driving
> 
> - platform where passenger wait the ferry (pier or building, that's the
> issue.. if you look at bus relation, does passenger wait on the pier ?
> some pier are only used temporarily to reach the boat, other are
> used as
> a waiting area and the building if more a "service area" (ticket sales,
> information, coffee, toilet)
> 
> - stop_position where the ferry stop to allow passenger to jump in
> some will argue that you can guess one of the two when you have the
> other (the passenger waiting area is not far from the ferry stop
> position)
> 
>  > Tagging a way that is not part of the ferry route as route=ferry
> is an
>  > issue for map users that assume that these ways are part of the
> actual
>  > path of the ferry
> 
> it's a subject that comes up regularly.
> some data users would like some objects to be described only
> with a node because they don't need more and/or beucase some apps
> bug/fail with way or MPs, while other contributors transform
> the node into way or area to add the extent of the object.
> wanting to restrict the accuracy that some add is in my opinion
> a lost cause.
> so it's better to fix app that make false assumption
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I agree that the parking lot is part of the landuse. This is a good
arguement for tagging landuse=religious forbtyh whole area, including
parking lots, religious classrooms (eg Sunday School, Hebrew School etc),
and religious office associated with the place of worship, while using
amenity=place_of_worship on the building(s) or land used for prayer, rites,
ceremony, assembly, or other forms of worship.

Joseph

> Parking areas associated with a shop I tag as landuse=retail together
with the shop.

> See no reason why things associated with a religious feature should not
also be similarly tagged - they are for the use of that feature and so
should be included as part of the features land use ???
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Ferry routes as relations?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

What is the benefit of including the ferry building polygon in the
relation? This is the part that Indknt understand. What is the use case for
including this info in the relation?

Joseph

On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 10:40 AM marc marc 
wrote:

> Le 24.03.19 à 00:19, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> > it is not clear what should be included in the relation.
> > Certainly the ways in the relation should connect one pier
> > to another, so that routing works properly.
>
> as for other PT relation, it may include :
>
> - way(s) (without role) where the ferry is driving
>
> - platform where passenger wait the ferry (pier or building, that's the
> issue.. if you look at bus relation, does passenger wait on the pier ?
> some pier are only used temporarily to reach the boat, other are used as
> a waiting area and the building if more a "service area" (ticket sales,
> information, coffee, toilet)
>
> - stop_position where the ferry stop to allow passenger to jump in
> some will argue that you can guess one of the two when you have the
> other (the passenger waiting area is not far from the ferry stop position)
>
> > Tagging a way that is not part of the ferry route as route=ferry is an
> > issue for map users that assume that these ways are part of the actual
> > path of the ferry
>
> it's a subject that comes up regularly.
> some data users would like some objects to be described only
> with a node because they don't need more and/or beucase some apps
> bug/fail with way or MPs, while other contributors transform
> the node into way or area to add the extent of the object.
> wanting to restrict the accuracy that some add is in my opinion
> a lost cause.
> so it's better to fix app that make false assumption
> ___
> 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] Ferry routes as relations?

[marc marc]

Le 24.03.19 à 00:19, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> it is not clear what should be included in the relation. 
> Certainly the ways in the relation should connect one pier
> to another, so that routing works properly.

as for other PT relation, it may include :

- way(s) (without role) where the ferry is driving

- platform where passenger wait the ferry (pier or building, that's the 
issue.. if you look at bus relation, does passenger wait on the pier ?
some pier are only used temporarily to reach the boat, other are used as 
a waiting area and the building if more a "service area" (ticket sales, 
information, coffee, toilet)

- stop_position where the ferry stop to allow passenger to jump in
some will argue that you can guess one of the two when you have the 
other (the passenger waiting area is not far from the ferry stop position)

> Tagging a way that is not part of the ferry route as route=ferry is an
> issue for map users that assume that these ways are part of the actual
> path of the ferry

it's a subject that comes up regularly.
some data users would like some objects to be described only
with a node because they don't need more and/or beucase some apps
bug/fail with way or MPs, while other contributors transform
the node into way or area to add the extent of the object.
wanting to restrict the accuracy that some add is in my opinion
a lost cause.
so it's better to fix app that make false assumption
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

[Warin]

On 24/03/19 10:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

I believe that the form and functions of Mosques is variable. The
original poster (Jean-Marc Liotier) said that they are mapping in the
Sahel, the Muslim-majority region along the southern border of the
Sahara desert in Africa. This is a semi-arid, tropical region where
most people are Sunni muslims from the Maliki school, and they share
some cultural similarities. But their practices are different than
those of Shia / Shiite people in Iran, or the Muslim diaspora in
Europe and North America.

I live in Indonesia, where the majority practice Sunni Islam, under
the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence. In the past there was strong Sufi
influence, and there are still a number of pilgrimage sites where
people visit the tombs of Saints or places associated with these
religious heroes.

Since the weather is always warm, most Indonesia mosque buildings are
open on 2 or 3 sides, but the whole area will be inclosed by a fence
or wall that marks the borders of the mosque area, including the areas
for ritual washing and often classrooms for children's religious
education. Mosques are supposed to always be open to the public for
prayer 5 times a day.

A mosque ('masjid", from Arabic) is not just a place of prayer here in
Indonesia. There is a different word (also from Arabic), "musholla" or
"musyola", for a simple prayer room. This can be a small room plus an
area for washing, within a larger secular structure such as an
airport, train station, retail mall, or government office. It can also
be a small separate building in a residential area. I believe a
musholla / musyola is considered a temporary place of prayer, while a
masjid (mosque) is land that is permanently dedicated as an Islamic
place of worship, at least in this school of Islam.

I map the central masjid building as a building=mosque, because
Indonesians refer to the building itself as a mosque, and this is
where the actual worship services and prayers take place, while some
of the other buildings may be offices or classrooms, not specifically
places of prayer or public assembly.

I would not map a musholla as a building=mosque, but I'm not actually
sure what would be the best tagging for these prayer rooms. The
(rather outdated) Indonesian tagging guidelines suggest tagging as an
amenity=place_of_worship for both, which seems imprecise.
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Indonesian_Tagging_Guidelines#Place_of_Worship)

Here's 2 interesting links to discussions about the meaning of
"mosque" vs mushollah:
https://www.albalagh.net/general/0074.shtml
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/170800/when-does-a-place-become-a-mosque

It's hard to decide when to use landuse=religious. If the whole land
area is already tagged as amenity=place_of_worship then database users
already know that the land area is used for religious purposes. But if
only the main building is mapped as amenity=place_of_worship then it
would make sense to map the surrounding land, within the fence or
wall, as landuse=religious.

In the United States, most "Islamic Centres" have all the religious
activities indoors, partially due to cold weather in the winter. In
this case I would definitely tag the main mosque building as the
place_of_worship, rather than the whole land area. Certainly a
suburban mosque, where most of the land is a surface parking lot, does
not need to be tagged amenity=place_of_worship out to the edge of the
parking.


Parking areas associated with a shop I tag as landuse=retail together with the 
shop.
See no reason why things associated with a religious feature should not also be 
similarly tagged - they are for the use of that feature and so should be 
included as part of the features land use ???



On 3/24/19, Paul Allen  wrote:

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 at 17:41, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:


On 23.03.2019 18:19, Paul Allen wrote:

Until you mentioned outside prayer, the obvious solution to a building

complex would

be a multipolygon.

No, there is no MP needed. As there are several distinct objects used for
worshiping, it would even
be wrong.


I disagree with that statement.  If they're all part of the same mosque, an
MP is not incorrect.

You'd have to find out if Muslims consider those different buildings to be
components of
the same mosque or not.  I doubt that they would, but maybe you're right.

If we follow your thinking, only the pews in a church are for worshipping.
The confessional is for
confessing, and the pulpit is for preaching.  Most people would consider
them to be all part of
the same church.  Even if, say, the confessionals were in a different
building (I've never heard
of such, but it's a remote possibility).  At one time, in some
denominations, the pews were
segregated between rich and poor and/or between men and women.  Different
places of
worship or the same?  Some universities have buildings in different
locations scattered around
a city: same university or each a different university?

--
Paul

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I believe that the form and functions of Mosques is variable. The
original poster (Jean-Marc Liotier) said that they are mapping in the
Sahel, the Muslim-majority region along the southern border of the
Sahara desert in Africa. This is a semi-arid, tropical region where
most people are Sunni muslims from the Maliki school, and they share
some cultural similarities. But their practices are different than
those of Shia / Shiite people in Iran, or the Muslim diaspora in
Europe and North America.

I live in Indonesia, where the majority practice Sunni Islam, under
the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence. In the past there was strong Sufi
influence, and there are still a number of pilgrimage sites where
people visit the tombs of Saints or places associated with these
religious heroes.

Since the weather is always warm, most Indonesia mosque buildings are
open on 2 or 3 sides, but the whole area will be inclosed by a fence
or wall that marks the borders of the mosque area, including the areas
for ritual washing and often classrooms for children's religious
education. Mosques are supposed to always be open to the public for
prayer 5 times a day.

A mosque ('masjid", from Arabic) is not just a place of prayer here in
Indonesia. There is a different word (also from Arabic), "musholla" or
"musyola", for a simple prayer room. This can be a small room plus an
area for washing, within a larger secular structure such as an
airport, train station, retail mall, or government office. It can also
be a small separate building in a residential area. I believe a
musholla / musyola is considered a temporary place of prayer, while a
masjid (mosque) is land that is permanently dedicated as an Islamic
place of worship, at least in this school of Islam.

I map the central masjid building as a building=mosque, because
Indonesians refer to the building itself as a mosque, and this is
where the actual worship services and prayers take place, while some
of the other buildings may be offices or classrooms, not specifically
places of prayer or public assembly.

I would not map a musholla as a building=mosque, but I'm not actually
sure what would be the best tagging for these prayer rooms. The
(rather outdated) Indonesian tagging guidelines suggest tagging as an
amenity=place_of_worship for both, which seems imprecise.
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Indonesian_Tagging_Guidelines#Place_of_Worship)

Here's 2 interesting links to discussions about the meaning of
"mosque" vs mushollah:
https://www.albalagh.net/general/0074.shtml
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/170800/when-does-a-place-become-a-mosque

It's hard to decide when to use landuse=religious. If the whole land
area is already tagged as amenity=place_of_worship then database users
already know that the land area is used for religious purposes. But if
only the main building is mapped as amenity=place_of_worship then it
would make sense to map the surrounding land, within the fence or
wall, as landuse=religious.

In the United States, most "Islamic Centres" have all the religious
activities indoors, partially due to cold weather in the winter. In
this case I would definitely tag the main mosque building as the
place_of_worship, rather than the whole land area. Certainly a
suburban mosque, where most of the land is a surface parking lot, does
not need to be tagged amenity=place_of_worship out to the edge of the
parking.

On 3/24/19, Paul Allen  wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 at 17:41, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
>
>> On 23.03.2019 18:19, Paul Allen wrote:
>> >
>> > Until you mentioned outside prayer, the obvious solution to a building
>> complex would
>> > be a multipolygon.
>>
>> No, there is no MP needed. As there are several distinct objects used for
>> worshiping, it would even
>> be wrong.
>>
>
> I disagree with that statement.  If they're all part of the same mosque, an
> MP is not incorrect.
>
> You'd have to find out if Muslims consider those different buildings to be
> components of
> the same mosque or not.  I doubt that they would, but maybe you're right.
>
> If we follow your thinking, only the pews in a church are for worshipping.
> The confessional is for
> confessing, and the pulpit is for preaching.  Most people would consider
> them to be all part of
> the same church.  Even if, say, the confessionals were in a different
> building (I've never heard
> of such, but it's a remote possibility).  At one time, in some
> denominations, the pews were
> segregated between rich and poor and/or between men and women.  Different
> places of
> worship or the same?  Some universities have buildings in different
> locations scattered around
> a city: same university or each a different university?
>
> --
> Paul
>

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

[Tagging] Ferry routes as relations?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The current page for route=ferry
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route=ferry) mentions that
ferry routes are usually tagged as ways, but can also be made with
relations. However, it is not clear what should be included in the
relation. Certainly the ways in the relation should connect one pier
to another, so that routing works properly.

Some users have also been including the terminal buildings as members
of the relation, as a "platform". See this overpass turbo query
(https%3A%2F%2Foverpass-turbo.eu%2Fs%2FHgy=D=1=AFQjCNErRovpb11Gv_sBnMYiLt9CX03ibQ).
I believe this is done by analogy with one of the Public Transport
tagging schemes. The main Public Transport wiki page does not mention
this in the section on ferries
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport).

There was a proposal
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refined_Public_Transport)
which suggests tagging the pier of a ferry as the "platform", though
it doesn't mention the ferry terminal building.

Tagging a way that is not part of the ferry route as route=ferry is an
issue for map users that assume that these ways are part of the actual
path of the ferry, so I think it would be better to only include nodes
for ferry terminals in the type=route relation for route=ferry. I
don't quite understand the whole public transport relation system,
however.

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

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 at 17:41, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> On 23.03.2019 18:19, Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> > Until you mentioned outside prayer, the obvious solution to a building
> complex would
> > be a multipolygon.
>
> No, there is no MP needed. As there are several distinct objects used for
> worshiping, it would even
> be wrong.
>

I disagree with that statement.  If they're all part of the same mosque, an
MP is not incorrect.

You'd have to find out if Muslims consider those different buildings to be
components of
the same mosque or not.  I doubt that they would, but maybe you're right.

If we follow your thinking, only the pews in a church are for worshipping.
The confessional is for
confessing, and the pulpit is for preaching.  Most people would consider
them to be all part of
the same church.  Even if, say, the confessionals were in a different
building (I've never heard
of such, but it's a remote possibility).  At one time, in some
denominations, the pews were
segregated between rich and poor and/or between men and women.  Different
places of
worship or the same?  Some universities have buildings in different
locations scattered around
a city: same university or each a different university?

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

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 23.03.2019 18:19, Paul Allen wrote:

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 at 17:05, Jean-Marc Liotier mailto:j...@liotier.org>> wrote:


The case I have in mind is where the mosque is a complex of several
buildings - such as the building for ritual ablutions, a separate prayer
building for women, the outside prayer ground for days of large
gatherings, the toilets etc.


Until you mentioned outside prayer, the obvious solution to a building complex 
would
be a multipolygon.


No, there is no MP needed. As there are several distinct objects used for worshiping, it would even 
be wrong.
Thus you can tag the campus complex with landuse=religious, and the individual worshiping places 
with amenity=place_of_worship. You could even add description=* to explain their individual purpose, 
and building=* if it is a building.


tom

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

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

[Greg Troxel]

Jean-Marc Liotier  writes:

> On 3/23/19 6:04 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> I find the implicit rules really problematic, as we don't have a
>> machine-readable repository of them that can be used to processs tags as
>> they are to the full logical set of what they mean.
>
> So, should the amenity=place_of_worship complex have landuse=religious
> too ? I wouldn't mind - if a consensus here believes so.

My view is perhaps a bit extreme, which is that ideally everything that
has human use would have some landuse tag.  I prefer explicit
representation of landuse and landcover both, with a clear logical
separation between these two concepts.

So in a situation where there is a church building and parking lot
(carpark in en_GB) on a parcel (area of land under one ownership), I
would put landuse=religious.  Same for something larger with more
buildings.

And if there were two unrelated churches on two adjacent lots, I would
ideally put only one landuse=religious object (which might get into
relations), since landuse is not about per parcel or per object, but
about groups of them.


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

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 at 17:05, Jean-Marc Liotier  wrote:

>
> The case I have in mind is where the mosque is a complex of several
> buildings - such as the building for ritual ablutions, a separate prayer
> building for women, the outside prayer ground for days of large
> gatherings, the toilets etc.


Until you mentioned outside prayer, the obvious solution to a building
complex would
be a multipolygon.

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

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 3/23/19 6:04 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:

I find the implicit rules really problematic, as we don't have a
machine-readable repository of them that can be used to processs tags as
they are to the full logical set of what they mean.


So, should the amenity=place_of_worship complex have landuse=religious 
too ? I wouldn't mind - if a consensus here believes so.




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

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 at 14:13, Jean-Marc Liotier  wrote:

>  And I'm not even Muslim !
>

That makes two of us.  I'm an infidel.  An omni-infidel.  It doesn't matter
what faith somebody
is, I am not of that faith.

I have learned from Muslims and confirmed in literature that this
> tagging scheme is wrong: what I considered as the mosque itself is
> merely the main prayer hall. The mosque is actually the whole complex
> that I used to tag as landuse=religious.
>

Going by what Wikipedia says on the subject (which may be completely wrong)
a mosque
is defined by Muslims using it as a place of prayer.  It could be a
building, or an area of
open land.  It could be an impromptu decision to pray there.  Mosque =
place of prayer.

That said, it appears your own researches imply that Mosque doesn't mean
"Islamic equivalent
of a church" but "Islamic equivalent of a churchyard."  I'm not convinced,
given the Wikipedia
article, that your interpretation is correct.  It might be, if prayer
happens in the grounds as
well as the building or instead of the building, but that may not usually
be the case.

So, no landuse=religious anymore


If the land is associated with the building and is subject to some form of
religious restrictions
as to what may be done there (it's not public land where you could have a
picnic and drink a
few beers) then it's landuse=religious.  Even if, as with Christian
churchyards, all its used for
is to grow grass.


> at all and no building=mosque for the
> buildings inside a mosque complex (building=yes - or, for the
> adventurous, multipart buildings with distinct minaret and dome)
>

Others will no doubt disagree, but I use building=* to describe what it
looks like.  It's
building=church if it looks like a church even if it's long since been
deconsecrated and
turned into dwellings or a bingo hall.  It's building=chapel if it looks
like a chapel.  And it's
building=mosque if it looks like what most non-Islamic people would call a
mosque (i.e.,
dome and minarets).

As in "What's that over there that looks like a church?"  Or "Go straight
on for a mile and turn
left at the church."  It may no longer be used as a church, but when using
it as a landmark,
particularly if seen at a distance, you go by the appearance.  Other tags
are used to describe
the function.

I'd continue to tag the building as a mosque.  Because most of the time if
there's a building
on religious ground that looks like a mosque then people are going to be
praying inside the
building and not outside on the grass.  I'd continue to use
landuse=religious for the grounds,
even if (as with many Christian churchyards) they're indistinguishable from
a private garden
because there will be access and usage restrictions, even if they're
informal: you will be
expected to comport yourself accordingly.

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

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

[Greg Troxel]

Jean-Marc Liotier  writes:

> On 3/23/19 5:28 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> Jean-Marc Liotier  writes:
>>> So, no landuse=religious anymore at all and no building=mosque for the
>> I don't understand why you think landuse=religious shouldn't be
>> present. It seems that all land used for religious purposes should
>> have that tag
>
> Redundancy ? I have the same issue for shop=* (or even amenity=fuel)
> also tagged with landuse=retail - same sort of redundancy.
>
> To me, amenity=place of worship is implicitly landuse=religious and
> shop=* is implicitly landuse=retail... Am I alone in thinking that way?

You are surely not alone :-)

I see having landuse as consistency, so that data consumers
understanding landuse can do so, without having a vast array of implicit
rules.

As for shop/fuel, I prefer shop etc. tags on the individual places, and
landuse=retail on the entire land area that is in use for that sort of
thing (including parking - the whole group of parcels).  That extent of
area cannot be inferred from the other tags.

I find the implicit rules really problematic, as we don't have a
machine-readable repository of them that can be used to processs tags as
they are to the full logical set of what they mean.

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

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 3/23/19 4:55 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

On 23.03.2019 15:12, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:

The wikipedia article has some insight in the process, however it also 
mentions that a mosque can be a building. So, if the mosque is a 
building, tagging building=mosque would be fine.
Yes, the case of a single building containing an integrated mosque is 
"amenity=place_of_worship + religion=muslim + building=mosque".


The case I have in mind is where the mosque is a complex of several 
buildings - such as the building for ritual ablutions, a separate prayer 
building for women, the outside prayer ground for days of large 
gatherings, the toilets etc. The main prayer hall, with the dome roof 
and the minaret tower is what comes to mind when we think "mosque" but 
the mosque is actually the whole walled complex - hence tagging it 
"amenity=place_of_worship + religion=muslim".



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

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 3/23/19 5:28 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:

Jean-Marc Liotier  writes:

So, no landuse=religious anymore at all and no building=mosque for the

I don't understand why you think landuse=religious shouldn't be
present. It seems that all land used for religious purposes should
have that tag


Redundancy ? I have the same issue for shop=* (or even amenity=fuel) 
also tagged with landuse=retail - same sort of redundancy.


To me, amenity=place of worship is implicitly landuse=religious and 
shop=* is implicitly landuse=retail... Am I alone in thinking that way ?




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

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

[Greg Troxel]

Jean-Marc Liotier  writes:

> So, no landuse=religious anymore at all and no building=mosque for the

I don't understand why you think landuse=religious shouldn't be
present.It seems that all land used for religious purposes should
have that tag, whether it's a smallish lot that just contains a
building, or whether it's a larger campus, and regardless of which
religion.  I do not understand the concept of separate rules per
religion about landuse tags.

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

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 23.03.2019 15:12, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
I have learned from Muslims and confirmed in literature that this tagging scheme is wrong: what I 
considered as the mosque itself is merely the main prayer hall. The mosque is actually the whole 
complex that I used to tag as landuse=religious.


So, if the actual praying happens in the building, this is the place where the 
worshiping happens,
hence the place of worship, hence amenity=place_of_worship

Thus I see no need for different tagging.

The wikipedia article has some insight in the process, however it also mentions that a mosque can be 
a building. So, if the mosque is a building, tagging building=mosque would be fine.


Even for the situation that the worshiping happens without a building, the general campus can be 
tagged landuse=religious, the more specific location of the worshiping amenity=place_of_worship, but 
without a building tag.


tom

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

[Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

In the Sahelian Openstreetmap I enjoy tagging mosques because they are 
prominent features, nice for navigation and easy to spot on orbital 
imagery - for me it has definitely turned into a "gotta catch'em all" 
game... And I'm not even Muslim !


The tagging scheme I had settled upon was amenity=place_of_worship + 
religion=muslim (building=mosque if there is a main building) and 
landuse=religious + religion=muslim for the plot.


I have learned from Muslims and confirmed in literature that this 
tagging scheme is wrong: what I considered as the mosque itself is 
merely the main prayer hall. The mosque is actually the whole complex 
that I used to tag as landuse=religious.


So, here is my current position regarding the tagging of mosques:

Single building mosque, no change:
amenity=place_of_worship + religion=muslim + building=mosque

Mosque complex: tag the whole plot (often the perimeter is also 
barrier=wall):

amenity=place_of_worship + religion=muslim

So, no landuse=religious anymore at all and no building=mosque for the 
buildings inside a mosque complex (building=yes - or, for the 
adventurous, multipart buildings with distinct minaret and dome)


Anyone else obsessed with mosques to give an opinion on this 
clarification - is it correct ?



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