Re: [Tagging] Public buildings

2016-01-10 Thread johnw
> 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 >

Re: [Tagging] Public buildings

2016-01-10 Thread Colin Smale
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

Re: [Tagging] Public buildings

2016-01-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
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

Re: [Tagging] Public buildings

2016-01-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
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

Re: [Tagging] Public buildings

2016-01-09 Thread Andy Townsend
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

Re: [Tagging] Public buildings

2016-01-09 Thread Warin
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

[Tagging] Public buildings

2016-01-09 Thread Matthijs Melissen
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 

Re: [Tagging] Public buildings

2016-01-09 Thread Daniel Koć
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

Re: [Tagging] Public buildings

2016-01-09 Thread Warin
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

Re: [Tagging] Public buildings

2016-01-09 Thread Daniel Koć
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'

Re: [Tagging] Public buildings

2016-01-09 Thread Matthijs Melissen
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

Re: [Tagging] Public buildings

2016-01-09 Thread Tom Pfeifer
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,

Re: [Tagging] Public buildings

2016-01-09 Thread John Willis
> 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

Re: [Tagging] Public buildings

2016-01-09 Thread Warin
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?

Re: [Tagging] Public buildings

2016-01-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
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

Re: [Tagging] Public buildings

2016-01-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
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