Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Sep 2018, at 13:30, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> Would it be more useful to tag it as building=church or building=house?
> 
> Similarly, ask a child to draw a church.  Or a house.  Or even a supermarket.
> 
> That's why I have strong doubts about building=gastronomic (or whatever it 
> ends up being).  I know what a church looks
> like.  Ditto for supermarket, industrial unit, warehouse and house.  I cannot 
> bring to mind a typical restaurant architecture.


+1, exactly. Although a fast_food_restaurant building is something I would have 
an idea about. “gastronomy” doesn’t make sense.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Sep 2018, at 09:20, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> e.g. building=parking, office, commercial, apartments, ... all functional 
> rather than architecture.


these are all building types. Buildings can be (and are) classified according 
to lots different criteria, intended usage/function is clearly a principal 
designing parameter, from my point of view there is nothing wrong with these 
values (commercial is so generic it doesn’t tell you much, at least you know it 
is not residential though).
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[John Willis]

> On Sep 27, 2018, at 4:20 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> That was the intention. But many mappers are mapping the function of the 
> building, not the appearance/architecture.

TLDR: it's difficult to understand the spirit of building=* as "constructed 
type" when almost all buildings one is mapping are used by their owner for 
their initially built purpose; this leads to a general misunderstanding of 
building=* usage. 

~

My house in San Diego was built in 1922, and is in the oldest 1% of structures. 
Most were built after 1960. 

In some areas, the structure is valuable, easily repurposable, and/or is not 
expected to be demolished - which would lead to the building=* tag to be 
different than the current use of the occupant. 

This descrepancy is what has led to some people (myself included) as the tag 
being for defining the general purpose the building  as it is currently used 
(building=retail, industrial, house, etc), which is not it's intended purpose. 

I understand the idea of the "constructed type" being defined through 
building=*, but that is very difficult to grasp when you tag mostly buildings 
made after WWII that are still used for the same purpose. 

Example: 

Japan is a very old place - but everything old is a temple or has rotted away  
- so many buildings: residential, commercial, and industrial are boom-times 
building (1960,1970s) - there is just so little repurposing of structures that 
I see.  Perhaps 1 in 5000 structures (where I am mapping) are repurposed, and 
the ones I know of are storehouse/warehouses from silk production -  there are 
just a handful. Most everything here gets demolished and the lot gravelled when 
the land is sold - people dont buy structures; they buy land. prewar wood and 
bamboo structures exist but are abandoned, boomyear house-shops have the shop 
portion shuttered, post war low-income housing was (& is still being) 
demolished to make apartment blocks that are now themselves being demolished 
for modern apartment complexes.  The only exception is a glut of 1990's 7-11s 
that were abandoned and repurosed into other shops - but almost 100% are still 
retail.  Old blocks of stores are demolished and convenience stores spring from 
the gravelled lots are like weeds here. I counted 7 new ones under construction 
in the past 10 days - they all are new construction replacing demolished older 
shops. 

I imagine tagging a bakery In a church building would entail using 
building=church - but for some mappers, it a very rare occurrence, leading to 
building=* to feel like  a usage identifier rather than for structure 
construction type, which I guess has led to mis-mapping and tag value 
pollution. 

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

27. Sep 2018 14:21 by pla16...@gmail.com :


> Which, if you were describing it as a waypoint in a route to somebody, would 
> be "a church converted to a restaurant" or> "a restaurant in an old church."  
> What a shame we have no way of tagging that, there is no mechanism for> 
> saying "building=church + amenity=restaurant."  So let's invent 
> "building=gastronomic + amenity=restaurant +> building:looks_like=church"  
> because that's a much better way of doing it. :)
>




There are building and building:use tags 





https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:use 


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buildings 


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 1:31 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
> >  I cannot bring to mind a typical restaurant architecture.
>
> if you have to take the interior into account it can be done sometimes:
> - large seating area (even noticable when empty)
> - a bar where the personnel prepares drinks
> - large kitchen area
> - a toilet area
> - a reception area (possible with personnel) or wardrobe
> - often better access for wheelchairs than a typical house
> - for fast_food: a counter with large displays to list menus and prices
>
> On the outside it can be a villa or a warehouse or a church...
>

Which, if you were describing it as a waypoint in a route to somebody,
would be "a church converted to a restaurant" or
"a restaurant in an old church."  What a shame we have no way of tagging
that, there is no mechanism for
saying "building=church + amenity=restaurant."  So let's invent
"building=gastronomic + amenity=restaurant +
building:looks_like=church"  because that's a much better way of doing it.
:)

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Marc Gemis]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 1:31 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>>
>>
>> So if we have to take the inside (or whole structure) into account,
>> what is the building type when the outside and the inside tell
>> something different ? Apartments in a church, a fast-food restaurant
>> behind the facade of a rich merchant's house from 1600, etc. ? On the
>> outside it might be clearly a church, but once inside you might no
>> longer see it used to be a church. Is the building a church or an
>> apartment building ?
>
>
> A discussion along these lines comes to mind: "From the secondary school, 
> walk west along Arbuthnot Street for about
> half a mile until you come to a church.  It's not really a church any more, 
> it was deconsecrated years ago and is now
> a family home, but look for a church."  Would it be more useful to tag it as 
> building=church or building=house?
>
> Similarly, ask a child to draw a church.  Or a house.  Or even a supermarket.
>
> That's why I have strong doubts about building=gastronomic (or whatever it 
> ends up being).  I know what a church looks
> like.  Ditto for supermarket, industrial unit, warehouse and house.  I cannot 
> bring to mind a typical restaurant architecture.

if you have to take the interior into account it can be done sometimes:
- large seating area (even noticable when empty)
- a bar where the personnel prepares drinks
- large kitchen area
- a toilet area
- a reception area (possible with personnel) or wardrobe
- often better access for wheelchairs than a typical house
- for fast_food: a counter with large displays to list menus and prices

On the outside it can be a villa or a warehouse or a church...

m.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:

>
> So if we have to take the inside (or whole structure) into account,
> what is the building type when the outside and the inside tell
> something different ? Apartments in a church, a fast-food restaurant
> behind the facade of a rich merchant's house from 1600, etc. ? On the
> outside it might be clearly a church, but once inside you might no
> longer see it used to be a church. Is the building a church or an
> apartment building ?
>

A discussion along these lines comes to mind: "From the secondary school,
walk west along Arbuthnot Street for about
half a mile until you come to a church.  It's not really a church any more,
it was deconsecrated years ago and is now
a family home, but look for a church."  Would it be more useful to tag it
as building=church or building=house?

Similarly, ask a child to draw a church.  Or a house.  Or even a
supermarket.

That's why I have strong doubts about building=gastronomic (or whatever it
ends up being).  I know what a church looks
like.  Ditto for supermarket, industrial unit, warehouse and house.  I
cannot bring to mind a typical restaurant architecture.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Marc Gemis]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:21 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 27/09/18 00:48, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>
> building tag is supposed to contain how building is constructed. For example 
> hotel in
> a church is building=church (with hotel tagged as usual).
>
> Former hotel building used as a warehouse is building=hotel.
>
>
> That was the intention. But many mappers are mapping the function of the 
> building, not the appearance/architecture.
>
> e.g. building=parking, office, commercial, apartments, ... all functional 
> rather than architecture.
> The appearance of these vary widely so mappers tend to identify the use 
> rather than the appearance.
>

I was once told that it's not only the outside that counts, but also
the inside. It can be very difficult to distinguish an office
building, a hotel, an apartment building, a school or university
building by just looking at the outside.
I'm thinking here of a high block with a lots of window in a
row/column pattern on the long sides.

So if we have to take the inside (or whole structure) into account,
what is the building type when the outside and the inside tell
something different ? Apartments in a church, a fast-food restaurant
behind the facade of a rich merchant's house from 1600, etc. ? On the
outside it might be clearly a church, but once inside you might no
longer see it used to be a church. Is the building a church or an
apartment building ?

If the original purpose counts, will you always be able to determine
it without consulting the original building plans ?

regards

m.

p.s. I'm honestly only looking for answers. I'm fine with your
definition, I just don't know what to pick in some cases

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Warin]

On 27/09/18 00:48, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:


building tag is supposed to contain how building is constructed. For 
example hotel in

a church is building=church (with hotel tagged as usual).

Former hotel building used as a warehouse is building=hotel.


That was the intention. But many mappers are mapping the function of the 
building, not the appearance/architecture.


e.g. building=parking, office, commercial, apartments, ... all 
functional rather than architecture.
The appearance of these vary widely so mappers tend to identify the use 
rather than the appearance.


Just like some map tree areas as landuse=forest with little regard to 
the human use of the land.





25. Sep 2018 02:54 by jo...@mac.com :

the buildings look like a hotel (or was perhaps a hotel in the
past) - but if it is just a restaurant now, then it is
building=retail.

If it is a place where you can rent a private room to sleep, it is
a building=hotel with a commercial landuse, a pin for the hotel,
and another pin for the restaurant  (the lobby restaurant in
hotels is usually a separate mappable place, as it’s purpose,
operating hours, and access to the general public is different
than the hotel itself.

(...)

the building=* tag helps define the rough purpose fo the building
- but not the exact purpose. The pin or other tags on the building
do that. And that building looks like it wants to sell food to
tourists.



___
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] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

building tag is supposed to contain how building is constructed. For example 
hotel ina church is building=church (with hotel tagged as usual).
Former hotel building used as a warehouse is building=hotel.

25. Sep 2018 02:54 by jo...@mac.com :


> the buildings look like a hotel (or was perhaps a hotel in the past) - but if 
> it is just a restaurant now, then it is building=retail. 
> If it is a place where you can rent a private room to sleep, it is a 
> building=hotel with a commercial landuse, a pin for the hotel, and another 
> pin for the restaurant  (the lobby restaurant in hotels is usually a separate 
> mappable place, as it’s purpose, operating hours, and access to the general 
> public is different than the hotel itself. 
> (...)
>
> the building=* tag helps define the rough purpose fo the building - but not 
> the exact purpose. The pin or other tags on the building do that. And that 
> building looks like it wants to sell food to tourists.  
>
>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Robert Skedgell]

On 25/09/18 12:47, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2018-09-25 13:07, Marc Gemis wrote:
> 
>> However, I'm not sure whether gastronomic is the proper
>> British-English word to use. I think the Brits are already using
>> building=pub (perhaps only for a subclass of your 'gastronomic'.

I've tended to use building=pub where the building is "obviously" a
public house / inn, built for that purpose.

> The predicate "gastronomic" implies a certain level of quality, aimed at
> good-food-lovers. Fast-food would not be gastronomic, nor would many
> restaurants and pubs. However a modern invention is the "gastro-pub"
> where they consider their food to be of a particularly high standard,
> not just standard pub food.

For a gastro-pub, perhaps amenity=pub + food=yes + cuisine=gastropub
(where no more specific cuisine=* would be more appropriate), regardless
of what building=* contains?

-- 
Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:

>
> But the building type of this McDonald restaurant [1] is so different
>

Until you brought them up, I couldn't think of any distinctly restaurantish
building.  Possibly because my nearest
McDonald is 30 miles away and I haven't even been near enough to see it in
over 10 years, so it's a dim memory.

Industrial, yes: large, blocky with few windows.  Supermarket, yes: large,
blocky with many windows.  Churches and
chapels, yes (but not one of the churches near me, which was based on a
design by a blind person using the only
Lego pieces available 50 years ago in an entry for "ugliest building in
Britain").

But then you get malls in many architectural styles.  And Micky Ds have
many different styles, with only the
arches in common.  Any distinctive frippery is purely cosmetic rather than
structural and could easily be removed.

All the restaurants near me are in converted houses or converted shops or
converted small warehouses, with none
of them built specifically for that purpose.  So, with the possible
exception of Micky D, none of them have a
distinctive restaurant architecture.

Simple test: remove the signage and whitewash the windows and what type of
building is it?  Churches, chapels,
some barns (the style known in the UK as a Dutch barn, which is not what
that term means in the US), supermarkets,
industrial units, railway stations are all recognizable.  Do the same with
most restaurants and the best guess is
"shop" or "house."  Except for one of the restaurants near me in a
converted warehouse with no windows at the
front - remove the signage and the guess is going to be "warehouse."

So building=restaurant (or whatever is used instead) seems to be blurring
the distinction between type of building
and purpose it is put to.  I thought we were moving away from that.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Marc Gemis]

When a building structure is changed to reflect the new purpose (e.g.
barn -> family house), I have no problem to map them as
building=house.

But the building type of this McDonald restaurant [1] is so different
from the blocks for large chains (DYI, electronics, Ikea, etc) you see
along this way [2] that I think they can both be mapped as some kind
of subtype of retail. Or, since we do not do subtypes, their own
building type.

[1] https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/J8z2tOByvXkCg_ChlQRvoA
[2] https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/QqQGd0_acODhNvhowymVrQ
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:28 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>>
>> I like the idea of having a separate tag for buildings that are
>> constructed to be restaurants, pubs, taverns, kro's etc. imho they are
>> a different type compared to buildings for shops, especially
>> supermarket-style buildings (which are large rectangles without too
>> many indoor walls). I see no problem to use a different building style
>> for a small shop in a town vs. a supermarket / mall / rectangle box.
>
>
>
> One problem is that current tagging practise does not give perfect 
> orthogonality between building
> type and use.  Another problem is that neither does the real world.
>
> Yes, there are two supermarkets in my town (there used to be three, and at 
> one point there were plans for
> a fourth) which are/were clearly building=retail (in your interpretation).  
> But there are buildings on an industrial
> estate which clearly are building=industrial but some of them are, or have 
> been, used for retail.  Most of the
> shops, restaurants and pubs in town are in what were built to be family 
> dwellings (houses).  Some buildings
> have been houses, then pubs, then restaurants, then pubs again, then shops, 
> then houses again.
>
> The ex-supermarket in town will shortly be turned to a variety of purposes 
> run by a church: part of it will become their
> place of worship, another will be the town's food bank, another will be a 
> cafe and another will be a small community
> area (well, those are the current plans).  It's still building=retail because 
> it was built as a supermarket, but
> arguably it could be tagged as building=yes.
>
> Many barns, stables and milking sheds in the area have been converted into 
> holiday cottages and look more like
> houses than farm buildings (some older barns and stables which are still used 
> as such are difficult to distinguish
> from houses using aerial imagery and even with a survey).
>
> Many churches and chapels around here have been deconsecrated and turned into 
> dwellings.
>
> Real life is messy.
>
>> However, I'm not sure whether gastronomic is the proper
>> British-English word to use. I think the Brits are already using
>> building=pub (perhaps only for a subclass of your 'gastronomic'.
>>
> There is an increasing blur between pubs and restaurants these days.  Many 
> pubs serve meals.  Many restaurants
> serve alcohol.  Some pubs exist in small hotels.
>
> Real life is messy.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-09-25 13:07, Marc Gemis wrote:

> However, I'm not sure whether gastronomic is the proper
> British-English word to use. I think the Brits are already using
> building=pub (perhaps only for a subclass of your 'gastronomic'.

The predicate "gastronomic" implies a certain level of quality, aimed at
good-food-lovers. Fast-food would not be gastronomic, nor would many
restaurants and pubs. However a modern invention is the "gastro-pub"
where they consider their food to be of a particularly high standard,
not just standard pub food.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:

> I like the idea of having a separate tag for buildings that are
> constructed to be restaurants, pubs, taverns, kro's etc. imho they are
> a different type compared to buildings for shops, especially
> supermarket-style buildings (which are large rectangles without too
> many indoor walls). I see no problem to use a different building style
> for a small shop in a town vs. a supermarket / mall / rectangle box.
>


One problem is that current tagging practise does not give perfect
orthogonality between building
type and use.  Another problem is that neither does the real world.

Yes, there are two supermarkets in my town (there used to be three, and at
one point there were plans for
a fourth) which are/were clearly building=retail (in your interpretation).
But there are buildings on an industrial
estate which clearly are building=industrial but some of them are, or have
been, used for retail.  Most of the
shops, restaurants and pubs in town are in what were built to be family
dwellings (houses).  Some buildings
have been houses, then pubs, then restaurants, then pubs again, then shops,
then houses again.

The ex-supermarket in town will shortly be turned to a variety of purposes
run by a church: part of it will become their
place of worship, another will be the town's food bank, another will be a
cafe and another will be a small community
area (well, those are the current plans).  It's still building=retail
because it was built as a supermarket, but
arguably it could be tagged as building=yes.

Many barns, stables and milking sheds in the area have been converted into
holiday cottages and look more like
houses than farm buildings (some older barns and stables which are still
used as such are difficult to distinguish
from houses using aerial imagery and even with a survey).

Many churches and chapels around here have been deconsecrated and turned
into dwellings.

Real life is messy.

However, I'm not sure whether gastronomic is the proper
> British-English word to use. I think the Brits are already using
> building=pub (perhaps only for a subclass of your 'gastronomic'.
>
> There is an increasing blur between pubs and restaurants these days.  Many
pubs serve meals.  Many restaurants
serve alcohol.  Some pubs exist in small hotels.

Real life is messy.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Marc Gemis]

I like the idea of having a separate tag for buildings that are
constructed to be restaurants, pubs, taverns, kro's etc. imho they are
a different type compared to buildings for shops, especially
supermarket-style buildings (which are large rectangles without too
many indoor walls). I see no problem to use a different building style
for a small shop in a town vs. a supermarket / mall / rectangle box.

However, I'm not sure whether gastronomic is the proper
British-English word to use. I think the Brits are already using
building=pub (perhaps only for a subclass of your 'gastronomic'.

regards

m.

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:35 AM Tobias Zwick  wrote:
>
> > the building=* tag helps define the rough purpose fo the building - but not 
> > the exact purpose. The pin or other tags on the building do that. And that 
> > building looks like it wants to sell food to tourists.  ^_^
>
> Yes, true. Though I rather had something like building=gastronomic in mind, 
> not building=restaurant.
>
> Am 25. September 2018 02:54:02 MESZ schrieb John Willis :
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Sep 25, 2018, at 2:15 AM, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> >>
> >> I find it kind of unfitting to tag those as building=retail because
> >the
> >> kind of building is almost like a residential one (or like a hotel).
> >
> >the buildings look like a hotel (or was perhaps a hotel in the past) -
> >but if it is just a restaurant now, then it is building=retail.
> >
> >If it is a place where you can rent a private room to sleep, it is a
> >building=hotel with a commercial landuse, a pin for the hotel, and
> >another pin for the restaurant  (the lobby restaurant in hotels is
> >usually a separate mappable place, as it’s purpose, operating hours,
> >and access to the general public is different than the hotel itself.
> >
> >there are all kinds of amenities - pubs, restaurants, bed&breakfasts,
> >Ryokans, fast food shops, etc,  But if they take up the entire
> >building, almost all of them would fall into building=retail or
> >building=hotel.  you are tagging the purpose of the building - not it’s
> >design, except in the rarest of cases.
> >
> >the building=* tag helps define the rough purpose fo the building - but
> >not the exact purpose. The pin or other tags on the building do that.
> >And that building looks like it wants to sell food to tourists.  ^_^
> >
> >I understand the “rest stop” nature of the building - there are similar
> >buildings in Japan, some larger complexes registered as official “road
> >stations” often using the nickname "Oasis” with the government, and
> >others that are merely private businesses that provide a place to sit
> >and relax and enjoy a coffee - but mapping the small  private
> >businesses that do this as anything other than a “cafe” or “restaurant”
> >or “convenience store” is very very difficult without some larger
> >complex with a larger landuse with more amenities.
> >
> >http://www.nanmoku.ne.jp/modules/oasis/index.php?content_id=4/
> >
> >
> >an official “Road station” on a very narrow road in the mountains.
> >
> >http://michinoeki-shimonita.com 
> >
> >A pretty large road station down in the valley.
> >
> >they are a collection of several shops and amenities - not a single
> >building with a single purpose.
> >
> >Javbw
>
> ___
> 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] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-09-25 9:34 GMT+02:00 Tobias Zwick :

> > the building=* tag helps define the rough purpose fo the building - but
> not the exact purpose. The pin or other tags on the building do that. And
> that building looks like it wants to sell food to tourists.  ^_^
>
> Yes, true. Though I rather had something like building=gastronomic in
> mind, not building=restaurant.



the building tag describes the type of building. This is the solution for
the purpose that was intended for the building at time of construction.
While it often has to do with what is now in the building (because people
will search a building that is suitable for what they do), this is still
somehow orthogonal. Inside the building, you can add objects that describe
the current user (e.g. a school, a hairdresser, etc.), these can be nodes
or polygons. Mixing both is common (some poi tags + building=*/yes), but it
is really a shortcut, a kind of group, not a single entity (it is both, a
building and a user), and when you add more detail about either of them
(building or POI), you will usually do better separating them.

There is no need nor documentation nor practice  to use very generic
building values (* in some fields where we generally still have a less
elaborated/refined tagging scheme, like industrial, it is admittedly
common) if you look at dwellings, a field that is common to everyone, we
use quite detailed values. I would argue the more specific you can become
(within reasonable limits, set by the general knowledge of interested
mappers, not experts), the better. Either you are interested in the
building type, then "residential" is too scarce, or you are not and the
landuse will usually be sufficient for you. We use building=train_station
and not building=transportation, because a train station is a specific
building type (although there are subtypes of course) people can recognize
and it provides the level information they are interested in.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Tobias Zwick]

> the building=* tag helps define the rough purpose fo the building - but not 
> the exact purpose. The pin or other tags on the building do that. And that 
> building looks like it wants to sell food to tourists.  ^_^

Yes, true. Though I rather had something like building=gastronomic in mind, not 
building=restaurant.

Am 25. September 2018 02:54:02 MESZ schrieb John Willis :
>
>
>
>> On Sep 25, 2018, at 2:15 AM, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
>> 
>> I find it kind of unfitting to tag those as building=retail because
>the
>> kind of building is almost like a residential one (or like a hotel).
>
>the buildings look like a hotel (or was perhaps a hotel in the past) -
>but if it is just a restaurant now, then it is building=retail. 
>
>If it is a place where you can rent a private room to sleep, it is a
>building=hotel with a commercial landuse, a pin for the hotel, and
>another pin for the restaurant  (the lobby restaurant in hotels is
>usually a separate mappable place, as it’s purpose, operating hours,
>and access to the general public is different than the hotel itself. 
>
>there are all kinds of amenities - pubs, restaurants, bed&breakfasts,
>Ryokans, fast food shops, etc,  But if they take up the entire
>building, almost all of them would fall into building=retail or
>building=hotel.  you are tagging the purpose of the building - not it’s
>design, except in the rarest of cases. 
>
>the building=* tag helps define the rough purpose fo the building - but
>not the exact purpose. The pin or other tags on the building do that.
>And that building looks like it wants to sell food to tourists.  ^_^
>
>I understand the “rest stop” nature of the building - there are similar
>buildings in Japan, some larger complexes registered as official “road
>stations” often using the nickname "Oasis” with the government, and
>others that are merely private businesses that provide a place to sit
>and relax and enjoy a coffee - but mapping the small  private
>businesses that do this as anything other than a “cafe” or “restaurant”
>or “convenience store” is very very difficult without some larger
>complex with a larger landuse with more amenities. 
>
>http://www.nanmoku.ne.jp/modules/oasis/index.php?content_id=4/
>
>
>an official “Road station” on a very narrow road in the mountains. 
>
>http://michinoeki-shimonita.com 
>
>A pretty large road station down in the valley. 
>
>they are a collection of several shops and amenities - not a single
>building with a single purpose. 
>
>Javbw

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[John Willis]

> On Sep 24, 2018, at 7:10 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> I am not even sure if restaurants are a type of retail

Restaurants sell food. Unless it is an “amenity” that belongs to a larger 
thing, I assume that all restaurants are building=retail. this is especially 
true of fast food restaurants. 

there may be situations where a restaurant is a point inside a larger building 
(a tower with a restaurant on top, a hotel with a restaurant inside, an 
apartment complex with a small restaurant on the first floor, etc ), but a 
purpose-built building along a road with a parking lot is certainly retail. 

we have =office and =hotel,  a type of building=commercial, so if you suggest 
we make building=restaurant, that seems fine to me. But in it’s absence, 
building=retail is the correct value (to me). 

javbw


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[John Willis]

> On Sep 25, 2018, at 2:15 AM, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> 
> I find it kind of unfitting to tag those as building=retail because the
> kind of building is almost like a residential one (or like a hotel).

the buildings look like a hotel (or was perhaps a hotel in the past) - but if 
it is just a restaurant now, then it is building=retail. 

If it is a place where you can rent a private room to sleep, it is a 
building=hotel with a commercial landuse, a pin for the hotel, and another pin 
for the restaurant  (the lobby restaurant in hotels is usually a separate 
mappable place, as it’s purpose, operating hours, and access to the general 
public is different than the hotel itself. 

there are all kinds of amenities - pubs, restaurants, bed&breakfasts, Ryokans, 
fast food shops, etc,  But if they take up the entire building, almost all of 
them would fall into building=retail or building=hotel.  you are tagging the 
purpose of the building - not it’s design, except in the rarest of cases. 

the building=* tag helps define the rough purpose fo the building - but not the 
exact purpose. The pin or other tags on the building do that. And that building 
looks like it wants to sell food to tourists.  ^_^

I understand the “rest stop” nature of the building - there are similar 
buildings in Japan, some larger complexes registered as official “road 
stations” often using the nickname "Oasis” with the government, and others that 
are merely private businesses that provide a place to sit and relax and enjoy a 
coffee - but mapping the small  private businesses that do this as anything 
other than a “cafe” or “restaurant” or “convenience store” is very very 
difficult without some larger complex with a larger landuse with more 
amenities. 

http://www.nanmoku.ne.jp/modules/oasis/index.php?content_id=4/ 


an official “Road station” on a very narrow road in the mountains. 

http://michinoeki-shimonita.com 

A pretty large road station down in the valley. 

they are a collection of several shops and amenities - not a single building 
with a single purpose. 

Javbw



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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Tobias Zwick]

What about buildings like these though? (de: "Gasthof" / "Gaststätte" -
"guest yard" = tavern / "guest place" = restaurant)

https://noew.infomaxnet.de/data/imxplatformj/images/301_gasthof_fink_bad_erlach_1.jpg
http://www.norbert-maas.com/foto/800_tetzelstein-8889.jpg
https://www.harzinfo.de/fileadmin/Mediendatenbank/Bilder/Orte/Sankt_Andreasberg/Rinderstall.jpg
https://images.1000ps.net/images/motorradhotels/hotel_866_1.jpg

I find it kind of unfitting to tag those as building=retail because the
kind of building is almost like a residential one (or like a hotel).

Tobias

On 24/09/2018 05:37, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018, 7:52 AM Martin Koppenhoefer,
> mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> I’ve recently used building=fast_food_restaurant
> but it is not used very often yet.
> 
> 
> Can you care to explain why building=retail is not enough detail? I
> would think that a combination of building=retail + amenity=fast_food
> (whether on the same polygon or on separate polygon + interior node) is
> already sufficient.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-09-24 11:55 GMT+02:00 Joseph Eisenberg :

> Well, OsmAnd lets you see different categories of buildings in different
> colors. I was actually going to try this out in a branch of the standard
> style (Openstreetmap Carto) to see if it could help.
> Right now the main categories of buildings fit with the areas:
> building=retail with landuse=retail
> building=office with landuse=commercial
> building=school with amenity=school etc
>
> And if restaurants are a type of retail, the building type should be a
> subcategory of retail.




I am not even sure if restaurants are a type of retail. It may well depend
on the definitions which might not be the same on a global level. It is up
to you to decide whether a restaurant building is a subtype of retail or a
type on its own (and everybody can do it as she pleases if you tag
building=restaurant) but if you subtag like retail=restaurant it is
enforced that it must be seen as a subtype of retail.

We do not do subtagging with building=residential (if there is a more
precise term like house, apartments, etc.), why would we do it for
restaurants?

Looking around in the internet, it seems that restaurants are not even
clearly retail landuse (nor would I restrict tagging building typology to
landuse classes). E.g. "In some downtown commercial zoning districts
restaurant uses are categorized simply as retail businesses and are not
treated differently from other retail uses, while in other districts the
definitions for restaurants  uses are regulated  specifically."
http://sf-planning.org/restaurantfood-service-use


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Well, OsmAnd lets you see different categories of buildings in different
colors. I was actually going to try this out in a branch of the standard
style (Openstreetmap Carto) to see if it could help.
Right now the main categories of buildings fit with the areas:
building=retail with landuse=retail
building=office with landuse=commercial
building=school with amenity=school etc

And if restaurants are a type of retail, the building type should be a
subcategory of retail.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> 2018-09-24 8:08 GMT+02:00 Joseph Eisenberg :
>
>> I’d recommend tagging all retail buildings, including fast foot and
>> restaurants, with building=retail.
>> A building built for fast food can easily be converted to a sit-down,
>> full-service restaurant without any modifications to the building
>> structure.
>
>
>
> not actually sure about this (space requirements for cooking and storage
> may vary, etc.), but I am sure you won't be able to convert a fast food
> restaurant to a shopping mall, department store or kiosk.
>
>
>
>
>> And a restaurant in a storefront building could turn into a different
>> type of retail when the lease is up.
>>
>
>
> yes, but this is about the restaurant usage, the storefront building
> remains a storefront building.
>
>
>
>>
>> How about building=retail plus retail=fast_food or =restaurant to show
>> the specific type of use?
>
>
>
>
> what is the advantage?
>
>
>
>
>> Or just add the amenity=fast_food tag to the building outline if that
>> works
>>
>
>
> it generally does not work, because it mixes different concepts into one
> tag, which you can only interpret by guessing and with additional knowledge
> (which properties belong to the building and which to the restaurant use).
>
> 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] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-09-24 8:08 GMT+02:00 Joseph Eisenberg :

> I’d recommend tagging all retail buildings, including fast foot and
> restaurants, with building=retail.
> A building built for fast food can easily be converted to a sit-down,
> full-service restaurant without any modifications to the building
> structure.



not actually sure about this (space requirements for cooking and storage
may vary, etc.), but I am sure you won't be able to convert a fast food
restaurant to a shopping mall, department store or kiosk.




> And a restaurant in a storefront building could turn into a different type
> of retail when the lease is up.
>


yes, but this is about the restaurant usage, the storefront building
remains a storefront building.



>
> How about building=retail plus retail=fast_food or =restaurant to show the
> specific type of use?




what is the advantage?




> Or just add the amenity=fast_food tag to the building outline if that
> works
>


it generally does not work, because it mixes different concepts into one
tag, which you can only interpret by guessing and with additional knowledge
(which properties belong to the building and which to the restaurant use).

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-09-24 5:37 GMT+02:00 Eugene Alvin Villar :

> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018, 7:52 AM Martin Koppenhoefer, 
> wrote:
>
>> I’ve recently used building=fast_food_restaurant
>> but it is not used very often yet.
>>
>
> Can you care to explain why building=retail is not enough detail? I would
> think that a combination of building=retail + amenity=fast_food (whether on
> the same polygon or on separate polygon + interior node) is already
> sufficient.
>


if built on purpose, these are clearly a proper category of buildings.
"retail" is a very broad term, an in my opinion there is a sense in
distinguishing shopping malls from department stores, from shops and kiosks
from fast food restaurants, from discount stores.
Some examples of retail buildings:
https://www.galerieslafayette.de/files/2010/04/YS36520-e1492774396711.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Bnkiosk.jpg/1200px-Bnkiosk.jpg
http://www.overtimepaylaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/aldi-overtime-pay-lawsuit.jpg
http://cdn.corporate.walmart.com/d9/73/c2342aa64fba8241599cc2d4584e/walmart-supercentre-canada_129858013133613481.JPG
https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/800/1*PXeZCWAmGm3EHPHeWMHsUw.jpeg


It is the mappers deciding which kind of building types they want to
distinguish (and at which detail level), but from my point of view,
basically repeating the landuse values is barely adding information, and I
do believe it is interesting to have the information about more specific
types.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I’d recommend tagging all retail buildings, including fast foot and
restaurants, with building=retail.
A building built for fast food can easily be converted to a sit-down,
full-service restaurant without any modifications to the building
structure. And a restaurant in a storefront building could turn into a
different type of retail when the lease is up.

How about building=retail plus retail=fast_food or =restaurant to show the
specific type of use? Or just add the amenity=fast_food tag to the building
outline if that works
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 12:38 PM Eugene Alvin Villar 
wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018, 7:52 AM Martin Koppenhoefer, 
> wrote:
>
>> I’ve recently used building=fast_food_restaurant
>> but it is not used very often yet.
>>
>
> Can you care to explain why building=retail is not enough detail? I would
> think that a combination of building=retail + amenity=fast_food (whether on
> the same polygon or on separate polygon + interior node) is already
> sufficient.
>
> ___
> 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] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018, 7:52 AM Martin Koppenhoefer, 
wrote:

> I’ve recently used building=fast_food_restaurant
> but it is not used very often yet.
>

Can you care to explain why building=retail is not enough detail? I would
think that a combination of building=retail + amenity=fast_food (whether on
the same polygon or on separate polygon + interior node) is already
sufficient.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Sep 2018, at 17:13, John Willis  wrote:
> 
> Building=retail if it is a purpose-built building for selling stuff ( a chain 
> restaurant, a McDonald's, etc), as it is purpose-built for retail. 


I’ve recently used building=fast_food_restaurant 
but it is not used very often yet.

cheers,
Martin 



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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[John Willis]

Building=retail if it is a purpose-built building for selling stuff ( a chain 
restaurant, a McDonald's, etc), as it is purpose-built for retail. 

If it is a rentable location in a mixed use building (shop spaces on the 
bottom, apartments on the 2nd floor) we have no suitable building tag for them 
(so =yes). 

Very large apartment buildings (15 stories tall) often have shops on the first 
floor, I would tag that busing as =apartments and pin the shops - it is 
primarily apartments. 

If it is some outdoor pavilion for seating to eat food, building=roof might be 
good, and small tiny eating areas might even be a picnic shelter. For dedicated 
outdoor seating of a restaurant, I am unsure how to tag a structure it might 
have. 

A shop/stall/booth/space/unit/location/suite in a larger building is not a 
mappable building (if it is indoors), a pin suffices. Outdoor stalls made of 
temporary materials (but left in place permanently) are mappable, but I don't 
know what as. If it is purpose-built little stalls in a row that never move and 
are at least permanently present,  building=retiail on the row and pins for the 
individual shops. 

Motorway buildings are usually one large building with many pins for different 
shops and amenities. I forget if there is a unique building type for motorway 
services, but I would still probably go with =retail for a large SA on the 
tollway - it is 95% souvenir shops and fast food. 


Javbw

> On Sep 23, 2018, at 9:11 PM, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> 
> Hey there
> 
> Do you have suggestions what would be the appropriate building value for
> a building constructed for gastronomic purposes only, such as a
> restaurant/café/fast food/food courts etc?
> 
> In context of Europe, I am thinking of:
> - inns/taverns (eating only) (de: "Gasthof"), for example in forests,
> national parks or other touristic areas, or that typical one inn in a
> village
> - the fast food place around the corner (de: "Imbiss")
> - restaurants and stalls at rest stops
> - motorway restaurants, food courts
> - staple food buildings (McDonalds etc)
> 
> Tobias
> 
> ___
> 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] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Tobias Zwick]

Hey there

Do you have suggestions what would be the appropriate building value for
a building constructed for gastronomic purposes only, such as a
restaurant/café/fast food/food courts etc?

In context of Europe, I am thinking of:
- inns/taverns (eating only) (de: "Gasthof"), for example in forests,
national parks or other touristic areas, or that typical one inn in a
village
- the fast food place around the corner (de: "Imbiss")
- restaurants and stalls at rest stops
- motorway restaurants, food courts
- staple food buildings (McDonalds etc)

Tobias

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