Re: [Tagging] Questions on building-tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 19. Dec 2017, at 22:00, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
> 
> I wouldn't tag this building=cathedral, even building=church is a bit much.


size is not everything, surely you have noticed this is from the nineth 
century? If this building is considered a cathedral I would use the tag.

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

Re: [Tagging] Questions on building-tag

[Janko Mihelić]

Let me show to you, the smallest cathedral in the world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Cross,_Nin

It's not the seat of a bishop any more, but it was in the past (and
churches are often called cathedrals even after they lose the status of a
seat of a bishop).

I wouldn't tag this building=cathedral, even building=church is a bit much.

Janko

uto, 19. pro 2017. u 14:19 Marc Gemis  napisao je:

> Adam, Martin,
>
> thanks for your input. It seems that one cannot only rely on what one
> sees from the street, or at least not always. Sometimes the name
> (church vs cathedral) has to be used to determine the value for
> building.
> I've seen pubs in all kind of buildings in Belgium, from being located
> in terraced houses, over train stations and villas to old manor
> houses. I doubt there is really a "pub"-building type here.
>
> I guess there will always be cases were we can debate whether a type is X
> or Y.
>
> regards
>
> m.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Adam Snape 
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > My own view of the building tag is that it notes what the building looks
> > like to someone on the ground. If it's a fairly generic building then
> > obviously the current use is a fairly good indicator. Something like a
> > church or pub though often still retains the characteristics of that
> type of
> > building even when internally converted. As long as it still externally
> > looks like a church or pub that is what I tag the building as.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > On 16 Dec 2017 4:35 p.m., "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> sent from a phone
> >>
> >> > On 16. Dec 2017, at 09:39, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The building page on the wiki [1] lists e.g a church, cathedral and
> >> > chapel.
> >> > But what is the structural difference between a church and a cathedral
> >> > ? I always thought a cathedral is where a bishop leads the messes (or
> >> > something like that).
> >>
> >>
> >> yes, AFAIK a cathedral is the main church of a diocese in certain
> >> denominations like roman-catholic, it is the church where the bishop
> >> or archbishop has his seat, and it is therefore also typically the
> >> biggest and most important church of the area. Structurally you will
> >> find cathedrals in general to be bigger than other churches, although
> >> there can be pretty big churches as well. Technically, "cathedral" is
> >> more a title than a certain type, while there are specific sub-types,
> >> in particular "gothic cathedrals" (mainly in France).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > The wiki page on cathedral tries to avoid this by saying some
> >> > buildings are build as cathedral but without a bishop, without saying
> >> > how one can see the difference between a cathedral and a church.
> >>
> >>
> >> I would leave this decision to the church. If they call it a cathedral
> >> it is one.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > I understand that chapels can be attached to other buildings, but they
> >> > can also be free standing. But how different are the bigs ones then
> >> > from a small church ?
> >>
> >>
> >> chapels might be there for a certain purpose, e.g. on cemeteries or in
> >> baptisteries, or part of a bigger structure (even a train station, an
> >> airport, a hotel, a convent, a hospital or palace). Again, I'd go here
> >> by what it is called  by the church.
> >>
> >>
> >> > I see similar problems with rectangular buildings with one or two
> >> > entrances a couple of floors, a flat roof and a lot of windows. They
> >> > can be schools, commercial, apartments, civic buildings. I guess one
> >> > has to take the interior division into account as well to determine
> >> > the type, not ?
> >>
> >>
> >> residential buildings are typically different from administrative
> >> buildings regarding the unit size and inner organization, entrances,
> >> corridors, stairs, sanitary blocks, etc.. You won't typically have
> >> difficulties telling which kind it is, if you enter. Of course, very
> >> neutral "architecture" like containers might be usable as
> >> (construction site) offices and also as tempory emergency residence.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > So can a commercial building change to a school when the interior wall
> >> > are changed? And if so, why is a church not changed into an apartment
> >> > building when the interior changes ?
> >> >
> >> > Or are we just wishing that building refers to the structure and not
> >> > the function ?
> >> > Or am I overthinking the whole topic ?
> >>
> >>
> >> yes, convertions are generally possible, it depends on economic and
> >> cultural factors if they are done. Some structures are clearly more
> >> universally usable and easier to convert into a different usage then
> >> what they were built for, compared to others. It also depends on the
> >> amount of compromise, an inhabitant is willing to accept, on the
> >> individual lifestyle (some people like living in industrial
> >> buildings), etc.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Those questions came up after I tried to answer a questio

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Fire Hydrant Extensions (part 3))

[François Lacombe]

This will need a whole proposal to get a comprehensive description for
pumps.
I think we should only use pump=yes for now and wait for a more complete
document to be written.

I agree with Colin, this is a vast question and it takes time to think
about right tags to use.

François

*François Lacombe*

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux 

2017-12-19 17:52 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :

> Hi Moritz,
>
> It depends on what characteristics are important to you.
>
> "water driven" is power transfer medium so pump:power_medium=water. This
> is not the energy source! It doesn't say if the water has potential/kinetic
> energy due to gravity, or if it itself is being pressurised by a powered
> pump (e.g. hydrostatic drive)
>
> "integrated" is to distinguish from something else? What would be
> alternatives to a pump being "integrated"?
>
> "bilge pump" is about its function, so something like "pump:function=bilge"
>
> "in a well" is about its location so "pump:location=bottom_of_well"?
>
>
> How about the type of pump? Centrifugal? Reciprocating?
>
> And the medium that is being pumped? In this context it is probably water
> but in general a pump could be used for all sorts of stuff.
>
> --colin
>
> On 2017-12-19 17:31, Moritz wrote:
>
> Hi Colin,
>
> Am 2017-12-19 16:29, schrieb Colin Smale:
>
> Please don't use "pump:type" as it invites people to use it for loads of
> different things. You are actually doing it yourself. A "bilge pump" is
> functional and says nothing about the construction or power source (even
> if there is such a thing as a typical bilge pump). And "electric_pump"
> is about the power source, and says nothing about the function or
> construction.
>
>
> What is your suggestion for proper tagging a
>
> * water driven bilge pump which is integrated in the well
> * an electric pump integrated in the well?
>
> Moritz
>
>
> On 2017-12-19 16:20, François Lacombe wrote:
>
> Hi Viking,
>
> Thank you for your work on this additional part
>
> I'd be in favor of grouping pump et pump:type in on "pump" key. Valid
> values would be yes, bilge_pump or electric_pum. Yes would be used only if
> pump technology is unknown.
>
> There is no need of 2 keys.
>
> All the best
>
> François
>
> FRANÇOIS LACOMBE
>
> fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
> www.infos-reseaux.com [3 ]
> @InfosReseaux [4 ]
> 2017-12-19 10:40 GMT+01:00 Viking :
>
> I removed all "useful combination" on hydrants wiki, because all optional
> tags could be added to this list and it would become unnecessarily long.
>
> Best regards
> Alberto
>
> ---
> Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast
> antivirus.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus [1 ]
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [2
> ]
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> Links:
> --
> [1] https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> [2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> [3] http://www.infos-reseaux.com
> [4] http://www.twitter.com/InfosReseaux
> ___
> 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
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Fire Hydrant Extensions (part 3))

[Colin Smale]

Hi Moritz, 

It depends on what characteristics are important to you. 

"water driven" is power transfer medium so pump:power_medium=water. This
is not the energy source! It doesn't say if the water has
potential/kinetic energy due to gravity, or if it itself is being
pressurised by a powered pump (e.g. hydrostatic drive) 

"integrated" is to distinguish from something else? What would be
alternatives to a pump being "integrated"? 

"bilge pump" is about its function, so something like
"pump:function=bilge" 

"in a well" is about its location so "pump:location=bottom_of_well"?

How about the type of pump? Centrifugal? Reciprocating? 

And the medium that is being pumped? In this context it is probably
water but in general a pump could be used for all sorts of stuff. 

--colin 

On 2017-12-19 17:31, Moritz wrote:

> Hi Colin,
> 
> Am 2017-12-19 16:29, schrieb Colin Smale: 
> 
>> Please don't use "pump:type" as it invites people to use it for loads of
>> different things. You are actually doing it yourself. A "bilge pump" is
>> functional and says nothing about the construction or power source (even
>> if there is such a thing as a typical bilge pump). And "electric_pump"
>> is about the power source, and says nothing about the function or
>> construction.
> 
> What is your suggestion for proper tagging a
> 
> * water driven bilge pump which is integrated in the well
> * an electric pump integrated in the well?
> 
> Moritz
> 
> On 2017-12-19 16:20, François Lacombe wrote:
> 
> Hi Viking,
> 
> Thank you for your work on this additional part
> 
> I'd be in favor of grouping pump et pump:type in on "pump" key. Valid values 
> would be yes, bilge_pump or electric_pum. Yes would be used only if pump 
> technology is unknown.
> 
> There is no need of 2 keys.
> 
> All the best
> 
> François
> 
> FRANÇOIS LACOMBE
> 
> fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
> www.infos-reseaux.com [1] [3 [1]]
> @InfosReseaux [4 [2]]
> 2017-12-19 10:40 GMT+01:00 Viking :
> 
> I removed all "useful combination" on hydrants wiki, because all optional 
> tags could be added to this list and it would become unnecessarily long.
> 
> Best regards
> Alberto
> 
> ---
> Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus [1 [3]]
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [2 [4]] 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Links:
--
[1] https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[3] http://www.infos-reseaux.com
[4] http://www.twitter.com/InfosReseaux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 

Links:
--
[1] http://www.infos-reseaux.com
[2] http://www.twitter.com/InfosReseaux
[3] https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[4] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Fire Hydrant Extensions (part 3))

[Moritz]

Hi Colin,

Am 2017-12-19 16:29, schrieb Colin Smale:
Please don't use "pump:type" as it invites people to use it for loads 
of

different things. You are actually doing it yourself. A "bilge pump" is
functional and says nothing about the construction or power source 
(even

if there is such a thing as a typical bilge pump). And "electric_pump"
is about the power source, and says nothing about the function or
construction.



What is your suggestion for proper tagging a

* water driven bilge pump which is integrated in the well
* an electric pump integrated in the well?

Moritz



On 2017-12-19 16:20, François Lacombe wrote:


Hi Viking,

Thank you for your work on this additional part

I'd be in favor of grouping pump et pump:type in on "pump" key. Valid 
values would be yes, bilge_pump or electric_pum. Yes would be used 
only if pump technology is unknown.


There is no need of 2 keys.

All the best

François

FRANÇOIS LACOMBE

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com [3]
@InfosReseaux [4]
2017-12-19 10:40 GMT+01:00 Viking :

I removed all "useful combination" on hydrants wiki, because all 
optional tags could be added to this list and it would become 
unnecessarily long.


Best regards
Alberto

---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast 
antivirus.

https://www.avast.com/antivirus [1]

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [2]


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



Links:
--
[1] https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[3] http://www.infos-reseaux.com
[4] http://www.twitter.com/InfosReseaux
___
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Fire Hydrant Extensions (part 3))

[Colin Smale]

Please don't use "pump:type" as it invites people to use it for loads of
different things. You are actually doing it yourself. A "bilge pump" is
functional and says nothing about the construction or power source (even
if there is such a thing as a typical bilge pump). And "electric_pump"
is about the power source, and says nothing about the function or
construction. 

//colin

On 2017-12-19 16:20, François Lacombe wrote:

> Hi Viking,
> 
> Thank you for your work on this additional part
> 
> I'd be in favor of grouping pump et pump:type in on "pump" key. Valid values 
> would be yes, bilge_pump or electric_pum. Yes would be used only if pump 
> technology is unknown.
> 
> There is no need of 2 keys.
> 
> All the best
> 
> François
> 
> FRANÇOIS LACOMBE
> 
> fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
> www.infos-reseaux.com [3]
> @InfosReseaux [4] 
> 2017-12-19 10:40 GMT+01:00 Viking :
> 
>> I removed all "useful combination" on hydrants wiki, because all optional 
>> tags could be added to this list and it would become unnecessarily long.
>> 
>> Best regards
>> Alberto
>> 
>> ---
>> Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus [1]
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [2]
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 

Links:
--
[1] https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[3] http://www.infos-reseaux.com
[4] http://www.twitter.com/InfosReseaux___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Fire Hydrant Extensions (part 3))

[François Lacombe]

Hi Viking,

Thank you for your work on this additional part

I'd be in favor of grouping pump et pump:type in on "pump" key.
Valid values would be yes, bilge_pump or electric_pum.
Yes would be used only if pump technology is unknown.

There is no need of 2 keys.


All the best

François


*François Lacombe*

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux 

2017-12-19 10:40 GMT+01:00 Viking :

> I removed all "useful combination" on hydrants wiki, because all optional
> tags could be added to this list and it would become unnecessarily long.
>
> Best regards
> Alberto
>
>
> ---
> Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast
> antivirus.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ___
> 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] Questions on building-tag

[Marc Gemis]

Adam, Martin,

thanks for your input. It seems that one cannot only rely on what one
sees from the street, or at least not always. Sometimes the name
(church vs cathedral) has to be used to determine the value for
building.
I've seen pubs in all kind of buildings in Belgium, from being located
in terraced houses, over train stations and villas to old manor
houses. I doubt there is really a "pub"-building type here.

I guess there will always be cases were we can debate whether a type is X or Y.

regards

m.



On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Adam Snape  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My own view of the building tag is that it notes what the building looks
> like to someone on the ground. If it's a fairly generic building then
> obviously the current use is a fairly good indicator. Something like a
> church or pub though often still retains the characteristics of that type of
> building even when internally converted. As long as it still externally
> looks like a church or pub that is what I tag the building as.
>
> Adam
>
> On 16 Dec 2017 4:35 p.m., "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
> wrote:
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> > On 16. Dec 2017, at 09:39, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>> >
>> > The building page on the wiki [1] lists e.g a church, cathedral and
>> > chapel.
>> > But what is the structural difference between a church and a cathedral
>> > ? I always thought a cathedral is where a bishop leads the messes (or
>> > something like that).
>>
>>
>> yes, AFAIK a cathedral is the main church of a diocese in certain
>> denominations like roman-catholic, it is the church where the bishop
>> or archbishop has his seat, and it is therefore also typically the
>> biggest and most important church of the area. Structurally you will
>> find cathedrals in general to be bigger than other churches, although
>> there can be pretty big churches as well. Technically, "cathedral" is
>> more a title than a certain type, while there are specific sub-types,
>> in particular "gothic cathedrals" (mainly in France).
>>
>>
>>
>> > The wiki page on cathedral tries to avoid this by saying some
>> > buildings are build as cathedral but without a bishop, without saying
>> > how one can see the difference between a cathedral and a church.
>>
>>
>> I would leave this decision to the church. If they call it a cathedral
>> it is one.
>>
>>
>>
>> > I understand that chapels can be attached to other buildings, but they
>> > can also be free standing. But how different are the bigs ones then
>> > from a small church ?
>>
>>
>> chapels might be there for a certain purpose, e.g. on cemeteries or in
>> baptisteries, or part of a bigger structure (even a train station, an
>> airport, a hotel, a convent, a hospital or palace). Again, I'd go here
>> by what it is called  by the church.
>>
>>
>> > I see similar problems with rectangular buildings with one or two
>> > entrances a couple of floors, a flat roof and a lot of windows. They
>> > can be schools, commercial, apartments, civic buildings. I guess one
>> > has to take the interior division into account as well to determine
>> > the type, not ?
>>
>>
>> residential buildings are typically different from administrative
>> buildings regarding the unit size and inner organization, entrances,
>> corridors, stairs, sanitary blocks, etc.. You won't typically have
>> difficulties telling which kind it is, if you enter. Of course, very
>> neutral "architecture" like containers might be usable as
>> (construction site) offices and also as tempory emergency residence.
>>
>>
>>
>> > So can a commercial building change to a school when the interior wall
>> > are changed? And if so, why is a church not changed into an apartment
>> > building when the interior changes ?
>> >
>> > Or are we just wishing that building refers to the structure and not
>> > the function ?
>> > Or am I overthinking the whole topic ?
>>
>>
>> yes, convertions are generally possible, it depends on economic and
>> cultural factors if they are done. Some structures are clearly more
>> universally usable and easier to convert into a different usage then
>> what they were built for, compared to others. It also depends on the
>> amount of compromise, an inhabitant is willing to accept, on the
>> individual lifestyle (some people like living in industrial
>> buildings), etc.
>>
>>
>> > Those questions came up after I tried to answer a question on a barn
>> > used as church and community centre on the help website.
>>
>>
>> as you say it is a barn used as a church, I'd say building=barn
>> If you had said: a barn converted to a church, building=church you
>> should have considered building=church. ;-)
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Questions on building-tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-12-19 9:09 GMT+01:00 Adam Snape :

> Hi,
>
> My own view of the building tag is that it notes what the building looks
> like to someone on the ground. If it's a fairly generic building then
> obviously the current use is a fairly good indicator. Something like a
> church or pub though often still retains the characteristics of that type
> of building even when internally converted. As long as it still externally
> looks like a church or pub that is what I tag the building as.
>


I agree with the idea that the overall look and feel is more important than
the actual inner structure. Let me give an example which some might know:
Hamburger Bahnhof in Berlin. It was built as a train station and operating
as such from 1846 to 1884.
This is what it looks today:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Hamburger_Bahnhof_%E2%80%93_Museum_f%C3%BCr_Gegenwart_%E2%80%93_Berlin%2C_Germany_-_20160615-02.jpg

Clearly, that still looks like a train station, although it isn't used for
railway for more than 130 years.

In the inside, you see the result of the latest restructuring completed in
1996 (now it is a museum for contemporary art):
https://www.google.it/search?q=commons+hamburger+bahnhof&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiW_LCL-pXYAhXIAsAKHYZvDAoQ_AUICygC&biw=1920&bih=985#imgrc=WWiFk-D3cThMNM
:

I would tag the building as
building=train_station

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

Re: [Tagging] New tag for major recipient postcodes

[althio]

I think one mapping practice with contact:* could help .

1- addr:* tag space is for generic addresses, used by all consumers

2- if there is ambiguity between adresses (postal, physical, ...) then
use several namespaces
2a - addr:* tag space for physical address (used by geocoding, routing, ...)
2a - contact:addr:* space for contact (postal) address (used for
detailed information about one POI)

if 2a is not suitable, consider any of:
physical:addr vs [contact|post|postal|snailmail]:addr

-- althio


On 18 December 2017 at 20:43, Simon Poole  wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.12.2017 um 21:22 schrieb Warin:
>
> As they are not related to a physical address then why use the address
> space?
>
> The addr tag space is for postal addresses, that are not guaranteed to be
> physical at all (for example addr:city is the postal city, which might be
> completely un-surveyable).
>
> That is not really a problem, the problem is more that we don't have a
> scheme for non-postal addresses.
>
> Simon
>
>
> Possibly the contact space? contact:mail:postcode=*
>
> -
> I believe 1800 numbers cannot be used internationally, so I don't use the
> ISD codes, that OSM requests, with these.
>
>
>
> On 18-Dec-17 12:36 AM, José G Moya Y. wrote:
>
> Do you mean PO box? In some cities, massive PO boxes have a special Zip
> code/ postal code. It could be a property of the PObox address.
>
> Maybe an attribute at the POI is right, as POI use to list email addresses
> and web addresses, which are independent from actual physical address (as PO
> boxes are), also.
>
> National-wide phone numbers treated (such as +1-800-x in USA, cellphones,
> "vocal nomad" numbers (+34-51-xx in Spain, if I remember well)  are unlinked
> to physical addresses too. Are they directions about how to use it?
>
>
>
> El 17/12/2017 13:58, "Tom Pfeifer"  escribió:
>>
>> As these postcodes are kind of a virtual address that is not tied to a
>> particular pysical location, my opinion would be _not to add them to OSM_,
>> which is a geo database and not primarily a post code reference database.
>>
>> Typically for those companies in DE, there is an additional physical
>> address which has a different postcode for the street address, which is
>> regularly tagged on the physical location.
>>
>> tom
>>
>> On 17.12.2017 13:42, Rainer wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> recently I came across postal codes in POI addresses, which aren't the
>>> classic scheme addr:postcode & addr:city & addr:street & addr:housenumber.
>>> However it is a special postcode that is assigned to recipients that receive
>>> a big amount of post every day, typically big companies or authorities. This
>>> kind of postcode is used only together with addr:city and does not require
>>> street and housenumber. So to say the post company has a big sack for post
>>> to that special postcode, puts in all the letters that are addressed to it
>>> and delivers the sack to the recipient.
>>> After some discussion in the german user forum
>>> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=60421 I want to propose a
>>> tag for this kind of postcode and would like to discuss it here in the
>>> tagging mailing list.
>>>
>>> The proposal is:  addr:postcode_major_recipient
>>>
>>> It should be used on POIs, because it is an attribute of the company,
>>> authority or whatever, but not as an address of a building, because it is
>>> not assigned to such directly. Target is to have a separate tag for this
>>> kind of postcode to avoid a mix-up with the normal addr:postcode.
>>>
>>> As I am not a native British English speaker, I have asked one and
>>> consulted the english page of the Deutsche Post. Reference:
>>> https://www.postdirekt.de/plzserver/PlzSearchServlet?lang=en_GB -> goto More
>>> -> Find major recipient
>>>
>>> Probably similar kinds of postcodes exist also in other post companies in
>>> other countries, so inputs about that are welcome.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Rainer
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Fire Hydrant Extensions (part 3))

[Viking]

I removed all "useful combination" on hydrants wiki, because all optional tags 
could be added to this list and it would become unnecessarily long.

Best regards
Alberto


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Fire Hydrant Extensions (part 3))

[Viking]

> check_date tag is very imprecise. some use it to indicate when they checked 
> the object on the ground without knowing what was checked. 
> others use it to check the date of objects under construction in external 
> sources without verification of the ground.
> I had proposed that we use operational_status:date which has the merit of 
> making it clear that we are want to have the functional test. But this tag is 
> not specific to hydrants, I'm not sure it should be added in the proposal of 
> hydrants.
> I wrote to the author of the proposal operational_status but I did not get an 
> answer. I will ask again and if it does not answer, I will propose to take 
> over the proposal separately from the hydrants.
>What do you think about ?

Ok, let us know about it.


> another think : imho we should remove name as "usefull combination".

+1 I do it, it is a residual of original wiki page.


> also we should remove fire_hydrant:count=* as "usefull combination"

+1 I do it, it is a residual of original wiki page.


Best regards
Alberto


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] Questions on building-tag

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

My own view of the building tag is that it notes what the building looks
like to someone on the ground. If it's a fairly generic building then
obviously the current use is a fairly good indicator. Something like a
church or pub though often still retains the characteristics of that type
of building even when internally converted. As long as it still externally
looks like a church or pub that is what I tag the building as.

Adam

On 16 Dec 2017 4:35 p.m., "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
wrote:

> sent from a phone
>
> > On 16. Dec 2017, at 09:39, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> >
> > The building page on the wiki [1] lists e.g a church, cathedral and
> chapel.
> > But what is the structural difference between a church and a cathedral
> > ? I always thought a cathedral is where a bishop leads the messes (or
> > something like that).
>
>
> yes, AFAIK a cathedral is the main church of a diocese in certain
> denominations like roman-catholic, it is the church where the bishop
> or archbishop has his seat, and it is therefore also typically the
> biggest and most important church of the area. Structurally you will
> find cathedrals in general to be bigger than other churches, although
> there can be pretty big churches as well. Technically, "cathedral" is
> more a title than a certain type, while there are specific sub-types,
> in particular "gothic cathedrals" (mainly in France).
>
>
>
> > The wiki page on cathedral tries to avoid this by saying some
> > buildings are build as cathedral but without a bishop, without saying
> > how one can see the difference between a cathedral and a church.
>
>
> I would leave this decision to the church. If they call it a cathedral
> it is one.
>
>
>
> > I understand that chapels can be attached to other buildings, but they
> > can also be free standing. But how different are the bigs ones then
> > from a small church ?
>
>
> chapels might be there for a certain purpose, e.g. on cemeteries or in
> baptisteries, or part of a bigger structure (even a train station, an
> airport, a hotel, a convent, a hospital or palace). Again, I'd go here
> by what it is called  by the church.
>
>
> > I see similar problems with rectangular buildings with one or two
> > entrances a couple of floors, a flat roof and a lot of windows. They
> > can be schools, commercial, apartments, civic buildings. I guess one
> > has to take the interior division into account as well to determine
> > the type, not ?
>
>
> residential buildings are typically different from administrative
> buildings regarding the unit size and inner organization, entrances,
> corridors, stairs, sanitary blocks, etc.. You won't typically have
> difficulties telling which kind it is, if you enter. Of course, very
> neutral "architecture" like containers might be usable as
> (construction site) offices and also as tempory emergency residence.
>
>
>
> > So can a commercial building change to a school when the interior wall
> > are changed? And if so, why is a church not changed into an apartment
> > building when the interior changes ?
> >
> > Or are we just wishing that building refers to the structure and not
> > the function ?
> > Or am I overthinking the whole topic ?
>
>
> yes, convertions are generally possible, it depends on economic and
> cultural factors if they are done. Some structures are clearly more
> universally usable and easier to convert into a different usage then
> what they were built for, compared to others. It also depends on the
> amount of compromise, an inhabitant is willing to accept, on the
> individual lifestyle (some people like living in industrial
> buildings), etc.
>
>
> > Those questions came up after I tried to answer a question on a barn
> > used as church and community centre on the help website.
>
>
> as you say it is a barn used as a church, I'd say building=barn
> If you had said: a barn converted to a church, building=church you
> should have considered building=church. ;-)
>
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging