On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 22:15, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
Some examples for houses that IMHO are neither terraces, nor single
> dwelling buildings, nor apartment buildings:
> https://img2.juzaphoto.com/001/shared_files/uploads/1242740_l.jpg
>
That's building=escher
here the buildings on the left
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 22:41, Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
>
> My own personal interpretation would be to say that if two houses share
> a wall, they are part of the same building. Buildings are expanded all
> the time. If a shopping mall expands a wing to give more space for more
> shops, we do not
sent from a phone
> On 7. Jul 2020, at 23:51, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> Sure, but a condominium is *not* the same. A condominium is, indeed,
> basically an apartment that you "own" rather than leasing. You don't own a
> lot, or have any ownership whatsoever of the building exterior, and
sent from a phone
>> On 7. Jul 2020, at 22:02, Paul Allen wrote:
> If you are suggesting using terrace to describe a topology that
> isn't actually a row of houses, that would be very confusing.
the German term is equally row house (Reihenhaus). Main difference to an
apartment building is
On Tue, 2020-07-07 at 22:14 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> Consider a house. In your understanding it is both a building and a
> house,
> and we tag it building=house. Now consider another house is built
> adjacent and conjoining, so that they share a side wall. Two houses
> in your understanding.
sent from a phone
>> On 7. Jul 2020, at 23:45, Paul Allen wrote:
> Building for the house, node for the workplace. Micromappers will be upset
> unless you place the workplace node precisely, of course, but you probably
> have never been inside so don't know. That's assuming it still is being
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 00:08, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
traditionally, people worked and slept in the same space (the helpers),
> today these are typically shops and above dwelling/s. Are they „houses“,
> building=house?
>
Ah, so that's what you're getting at. A lot of those in my town. Built
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 07:45, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Building for the house, node for the workplace. Micromappers will be upset
> unless you place the workplace node precisely, of course, but you probably
> have never been inside so don't know. That's assuming it still is being
> used as a
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 21:50, Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-07-07 at 21:00 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 20:32, Skyler Hawthorne
> > wrote:
> > > Maybe it wasn't clear, but what I'm suggesting isn't to remove the
> > > suggestion of tagging as individual
sent from a phone
> On 7. Jul 2020, at 23:51, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> It looks like what we have here are "townhouses", which are somewhere in
> between "strict" row houses and condominiums
just that there is no „town“ ;-)
>
> I'm still inclined to argue that whether or not the
This is a very interesting example; thanks for sharing it! It definitely
helps me see where you're coming from, and how this practice came into
common use.
Although it is a very ambiguous situation, I would still side on this being
a single building that just so happens to have grown slowly
sent from a phone
> On 7. Jul 2020, at 21:48, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> Personally, if it's possible to determine the boundaries between properties,
> my inclination would be to model them as separate buildings. (It's somewhat
> worth noting that townhouses are *owned*, at least in part,
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 21:48, Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
>
> But I'm starting to think that maybe this issue is coming down to
> semantics. What exactly do we mean when we say "building" vs "house"?
> The personal interpretation I am working off of is that a "building" is
> the complete physical
On 07/07/2020 17.28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
On 7. Jul 2020, at 21:48, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Personally, if it's possible to determine the boundaries between
properties, my inclination would be to model them as separate
buildings. (It's somewhat worth noting that townhouses are *owned*,
at
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 00:02, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
On 7. Jul 2020, at 23:45, Paul Allen wrote:
here the buildings on the left and right:
> https://www.10cose.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/chiesa-calcata.jpg
>
I can't figure out which buildings you mean.
any but the church. It’s in the
sent from a phone
> On 7. Jul 2020, at 23:45, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> here the buildings on the left and right:
>> https://www.10cose.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/chiesa-calcata.jpg
>
> I can't figure out which buildings you mean.
any but the church. It’s in the same village as the first
sent from a phone
>> On 7. Jul 2020, at 23:41, Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
> My own personal interpretation would be to say that if two houses share
> a wall, they are part of the same building.
I agree here with what Paul wrote some posts ago: things are blurred in
reality. The details depend
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 15:47, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 07/07/2020 15.24, Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
> > Sure thing, it's here:
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/42.69323/-73.69023
> > ...
> > I did not take photos, as I am not comfortable taking pictures of
> > peoples' homes,
> Google
> > global coverage datasets tend to be so generalized and large scale that
> they often do not fit well with the human scale that we survey on the
> ground.
>
In my area of the world, https://soilgrids.org/ shows about 600ft, and the
types pretty well match up with the ground around here. So,
Jul 6, 2020, 23:22 by o...@dead10ck.com:
>> I'm also, in a more general sense, raising a question about the
>> established conventions and whether it makes sense to be tagging the
>> individual units as "buildings", when they are not really buildings
>> in and of themselves, but sections of
Jul 7, 2020, 02:15 by ja...@piorkowski.ca:
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 15:56, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
>> I guess that something similar to
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Crossing_with_a_designated_lane_for_bicycles
>> would fit.
>>
>> For example for road that has:
Should this be tagged amenity=fast_food? Its name contains the word
"restaurant" and these are proper cooked meals similar to what one
makes at home, but they cook large batches, so people can just sit in
and have a bowl of pagpag with no delay:
sent from a phone
> On 6. Jul 2020, at 22:42, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> According to the wiki page about building=terrace, it is usually best
> practice to map each house as a separate area (closed way) object.
>
> "A more detailed and recommended alternative is to map each dwelling
>
I settled on using building:part=house for the individual houses and
wrapping the whole building with building=terrace. I think this makes more
sense anyway, tagging the individual houses as part of the larger building.
Thanks for pointing me to building:part=*!
In general, how should one
sent from a phone
> On 7. Jul 2020, at 15:08, Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
>
> If I wanted to suggest this approach in the wiki, should I start a separate
> email thread to discuss this tagging scheme before editing the wiki page?
you do not need a separate thread, but changes like this should
It seems that "terrace buildings" is used to describe both collection of
individual buildings
and to large building, so maybe both tagging methods are applicable.
So far all cases that I found are better described as set of individual similar
buildings
Can you share/link photo with your case
Jul 7, 2020, 13:20 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>
>> On 6. Jul 2020, at 22:42, Joseph Eisenberg
>> wrote:
>>
>> According to the wiki page about building=terrace, it is usually best
>> practice to map each house as a separate area (closed way) object.
>>
>> ">> A
On Tue, 2020-07-07 at 21:00 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 20:32, Skyler Hawthorne
> wrote:
> > Maybe it wasn't clear, but what I'm suggesting isn't to remove the
> > suggestion of tagging as individual building=houses, but adding
> > another
> > section that says something to
On Tue, 2020-07-07 at 19:48 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> It seems that "terrace buildings" is used to describe both collection
> of individual buildings
> and to large building, so maybe both tagging methods are applicable.
>
> So far all cases that I found are better described
On 07/07/2020 15.24, Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
Sure thing, it's here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/42.69323/-73.69023
Huh! That's practically next door to me. There's a whole *whack* of row
houses in south Clifton Park.
A survey confirmed that they are large buildings with
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 20:32, Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
>
> Maybe it wasn't clear, but what I'm suggesting isn't to remove the
> suggestion of tagging as individual building=houses, but adding another
> section that says something to the effect of "for cases where the
> terraced houses are part of
Do not change the wiki - there are many different equally valid ways of
tagging terraced houses. I favour breaking terraces into individual
dwellings/houses.
There are many terraces locally -- they all have individual addresses
(and UPRNs) -- some have names for the terraces that are different
On Tue, 2020-07-07 at 19:42 +0100, Neil Matthews wrote:
> Do not change the wiki - there are many different equally valid ways
> of
> tagging terraced houses. I favour breaking terraces into individual
> dwellings/houses.
Thanks for your feedback. I'm sorry, but I think your second sentence
33 matches
Mail list logo
