[Tagging] Should greenhouse et al have building=yes? (was building=digester)

Can I ask a silly question at this stage - taking something like a greenhouse, would someone ever treat it differently depending on whether it has a building tag or not? In my case when trying to figure out how to render things like this the answer was "no":

Re: [Tagging] building=digester

> Op 20 mei 2016, om 21:09 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer > het volgende geschreven: > > Maybe already the word greenHOUSE indicates a building (yes, likely there are > foo houses that aren't buildings). The picture you have linked could be > called building I believe, but

Re: [Tagging] building=digester

sent from a phone > Il giorno 20 mag 2016, alle ore 20:35, Marc Zoutendijk > ha scritto: > > is by not one single person in the Netherlands called a “building" or a > "group of buidlings”. > > And in my use of the word “green_house” is was referring to the latter.

Re: [Tagging] building=digester

> Op 20 mei 2016, om 10:51 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer > het volgende geschreven: > > Actually the dutch wikipedians DO classifiy a greenhouse (kas) as nl:gebouw, > from wikipedia.nl "Kas(gebouw)": > "De traditionele

Re: [Tagging] building=digester

Marc, Sorry, sometimes I forget just how difficult it can be to agree about tagging terminology when there are underlying language differences like this that I was not aware of. I have trouble with the UK-English slant of OSM all the time and English is my mother tongue. Of course, I'm American

Re: [Tagging] building=digester

2016-05-20 11:01 GMT+02:00 Tom Pfeifer : > We probably need to adapt the definition for OSM, since otherwise > the very popular building=roof would fall through. > I think it might not (fall through), at least accorcing to the German LBO §2,(2) they would still be

Re: [Tagging] building=digester

Marc Gemis wrote on 2016/05/19 20:50: I don't know whether we want to follow the wikipedia definition or not, but it might help to decide where we have to place future tags. We probably need to adapt the definition for OSM, since otherwise the very popular building=roof would fall through.

Re: [Tagging] building=digester

2016-05-20 10:08 GMT+02:00 Marc Zoutendijk : > In my country, The Netherlands, we have tens of thousands of greenhouses > but nobody will call them “building” because that word translates as > “gebouw” and that doesn’t fit (in Dutch) to what a greenhouse is Actually

Re: [Tagging] building=digester

> Op 20 mei 2016, om 00:03 heeft Dave Swarthout het > volgende geschreven: > > I don't know where the notion came from saying a greenhouse is not a > building. It is not a residence but it is most certainly a building - it has > doors, walls and a roof, Just because

Re: [Tagging] building=digester

sent from a phone > Il giorno 20 mag 2016, alle ore 07:51, Marc Gemis ha > scritto: > > It is also not clear to me why a water mill or wind mill are man_made > and not a building. I d say they could also be considered buildings, if there is some enclosed space that

Re: [Tagging] building=digester

sent from a phone > Il giorno 20 mag 2016, alle ore 07:52, Marc Gemis ha > scritto: > > Marc Zoutendijk wrote in his mail that he does not consider a > greenhouse a building. if it helps, in Germany a building is an by humans accessible structure built for the