> On Jan 10, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To me an office building could be used for any administrative work.
> Government department sections here change locations - the education
> department human resources can move to another location ... even swap with
>
I agree, John.
The boundary between "public buildings" and others is becoming
increasingly vague. Many "governmental" tasks are carried out by third
parties nowadays, for example many prisons are operated by private
companies on behalf of the state, same with a lot of healthcare
provision (which
sent from a phone
Am 10.01.2016 um 01:49 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>>> that should describe the architectural type of a building.
> In some parts of the world .. 'public buildings' do have an 'architectural
> style'.
please note that type is different from style, type is about
sent from a phone
> Am 10.01.2016 um 08:58 schrieb johnw :
>
> I wish people would realize that leaving governmental stuff out in the cold
> to have pieces added to other tagging schemes bit by bit until it is
> acattered all over makes for a plainly inferior map, does not
2016 21:24
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Reply To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: [Tagging] Public buildings
Hi all,
The tag amenity=public_building has been marked as 'Don't use' on the
wiki since 2010 (see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpubli
y) would be to
sample a bunch of them and suggest better alternatives - maybe in changeset
discussions?
Original Message
From: Matthijs Melissen
Sent: Saturday, 9 January 2016 21:24
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Reply To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: [Tag
Hi all,
The tag amenity=public_building has been marked as 'Don't use' on the
wiki since 2010 (see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpublic_building ). As
far as I know, marking the tag as 'Don't use' has not been discussed
extensively, and the tag is still very commonly used (111
W dniu 09.01.2016 23:03, Warin napisał(a):
I would have the wiki page 'amenity=public_building' redirect to
'building=public' and then any alternatives suggested on that page.
+1
--
"Завтра, завтра всё кончится!" [Ф. Достоевский]
___
Tagging
On 10/01/2016 10:56 AM, Daniel Koć wrote:
W dniu 10.01.2016 0:20, Tom Pfeifer napisał(a):
Both 'amenity=public_building' and 'building=public' are problematic,
Sure.
+1
If you search on the wiki for 'public building' you get
amenity=public_building ... I think it should suggest
W dniu 10.01.2016 0:20, Tom Pfeifer napisał(a):
Both 'amenity=public_building' and 'building=public' are problematic,
Sure.
but for different reasons. Merging their wiki representations mixes the
arguments against both, and makes improvements even more difficult.
'amenity=public_building'
On 9 January 2016 at 23:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would have the wiki page 'amenity=public_building' redirect to
> 'building=public' and then any alternatives suggested on that page.
To me it is not clear that this is a solution, as the definition of
building=public is equally
Daniel Koć wrote on 2016/01/09 23:41:
W dniu 09.01.2016 23:03, Warin napisał(a):
I would have the wiki page 'amenity=public_building' redirect to
'building=public' and then any alternatives suggested on that page.
+1
-1
Both 'amenity=public_building' and 'building=public' are problematic,
> On Jan 10, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Matthijs Melissen
> wrote:
>
> To me it is not clear that this is a solution, as the definition of
> building=public is equally vague. Is a prison a public building? A
> band stand? A theatre? A bus depot?
A building operated by a
On 10/01/2016 2:14 PM, John Willis wrote:
On Jan 10, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
To me it is not clear that this is a solution, as the definition of
building=public is equally vague. Is a prison a public building? A
band stand? A theatre? A bus depot?
sent from a phone
> Am 09.01.2016 um 22:22 schrieb Matthijs Melissen :
>
> What do you think? Which way would you prefer to go?
I'd recommend to use more specific tags and discourage usage. I suspect this
tag is basically coming from the early days, someone looking
sent from a phone
> Am 10.01.2016 um 00:01 schrieb Matthijs Melissen :
>
> To me it is not clear that this is a solution, as the definition of
> building=public is equally vague. Is a prison a public building? A
> band stand? A theatre? A bus depot?
+1, it's
16 matches
Mail list logo