Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Tom Pfeifer]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote, on 2014-08-28 13:16:


+1, religious is no "use"


why not, why is it not a "use" such as residential, commercial or retail use?


and of no use (it doesn't express anything that religion=* won't express and

> introduces an incompatibility for mapping the actual usage of the land)

could you illustrate this incompatibility for my, what would be the "actual" 
usage?

Please keep in mind that there are not always clear boundaries -- a street in
a city with apartments in the upper levels and shops in the ground level would
probably tagged residential if the shops are just a bakery and a convenience 
store,
while I often see retail when it is a busy shopping street with plenty of store
variety.

Thus counting church taxes in an administrative building certainly has a 
commercial
aspect and I'm happy to tag the landuse so if that is in a business park with 
other
commerce, but I don't understand your incompatibility.

Tom



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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Andreas Goss]

I see heavy use in Ireland, UK, and Japan, and there was a fellow from
Japan


I count a dozen uses in Japan.

UK it's more common, but if you look closer it's again a handfull few 
mappers. And Polarbear a German mapper who also pushes this tag in the 
Wiki is for example remapping churchyards in the UK to landuse=religious 
e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/293297711/history


Also: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Polarbear_w


Maybe he speaks only Polish?


Well, then he has to find someone in the community who supports him 
there. Or at least he could work on the definition of the Polish Wiki 
page. (Checked his User Page, he speaks English)


Btw. I actually just now realized this page defines it as ecclesiastical 
territory and links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple o_O



Especially the sacred_ground thing confuses me, maybe it's also just
the translation.


I see him mention the term, but not as a proposal for a landuse tag, and
it is not used:


One possible interpretation was landuse=religious = holy ground ?!


It's a wiki, made by people. We are discussing it here, which can lead
to a refined
definition. Other often used tags have poor definitions as well.


It's made by the few people who use the tags. And they don't manage to 
present good definition in the first place. Also other defintions 
usually are poor defined because a lot of people started using it and 
there was no real agreement. I feel like if here a few mappers want to 
introduce a new tag and start mapping it then at least they should make 
sure it's well defined how and when to use it.


That's why people set up a proposals, so you can discuss it with the 
people what you think about tagging it like this. It's kinda complicated 
to argue for or against something if you don't even know what it is.



It's not even clear if it has to be around a amenity=place_of_worship

 > (description on the right) or that just often happens to be the case
(introduction text).

I had identified 4 use cases in a mail yesterday.


?

__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Tom Pfeifer]

Andreas Goss wrote, on 2014-08-28 12:46:

I removed it on several Wiki pages, including the Map Features template.



I still have the impression that it's something a very few mappers use.

> The usage numbers might look big, but if you take a closer look especially at 
Poland it's done by 1 mapper.

If that impression is based on the google query you had posted on 31/07/2014,
this is no wonder. Your query contained the username. Like querying for
red cars and getting that 100% cars are red.

I see heavy use in Ireland, UK, and Japan, and there was a fellow from Japan
in this discussion much in favour:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=landuse&value=religious#map


And I don't get the impression that he is very interested in a discussion:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.openstreetmap.org%2Fviewtopic.php%3Fpid%3D441416&edit-text=&act=url


Maybe he speaks only Polish?


Especially the sacred_ground thing confuses me, maybe it's also just the 
translation.


I see him mention the term, but not as a proposal for a landuse tag, and it is 
not used:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=landuse&value=sacred_ground
Zero


This also leads me to the biggest issue, the Wiki pages pretty much contains NO 
REAL DEFINITION,

> all it really says is "landuse=religious - The area used for religious 
purposes."
> What follows are just examples what you can combine it with.

It's a wiki, made by people. We are discussing it here, which can lead to a 
refined
definition. Other often used tags have poor definitions as well.


It's not even clear if it has to be around a amenity=place_of_worship

> (description on the right) or that just often happens to be the case 
(introduction text).

I had identified 4 use cases in a mail yesterday.



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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 28/ago/2014, alle ore 12:46, Andreas Goss  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> I still have the impression that it's something a very few mappers use. The 
> usage numbers might look big, but if you take a closer look especially at 
> Poland it's done by 1 mapper.


+1, religious is no "use" and of no use (it doesn't express anything that 
religion=* won't express and introduces an incompatibility for mapping the 
actual usage of the land)

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Andreas Goss]

I removed it on several Wiki pages, including the Map Features template.

I still have the impression that it's something a very few mappers use. 
The usage numbers might look big, but if you take a closer look 
especially at Poland it's done by 1 mapper.


And I don't get the impression that he is very interested in a discussion:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.openstreetmap.org%2Fviewtopic.php%3Fpid%3D441416&edit-text=&act=url

Especially the sacred_ground thing confuses me, maybe it's also just the 
translation.


This also leads me to the biggest issue, the Wiki pages pretty much 
contains NO REAL DEFINITION, all it really says is "landuse=religious - 
The area used for religious purposes." What follows are just examples 
what you can combine it with. It's not even clear if it has to be around 
a amenity=place_of_worship (description on the right) or that just often 
happens to be the case (introduction text).

__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

Tom, I think you are interpreting the tag amenity=place_of_worship too
literally. In my opinion, this is not intended to only apply to the
specific place or building where the actual worshiping happens.

For one thing, we tag footways as highway=footway but footways are not
highways. And we tag city halls as amenity=townhall even though cities are
not towns (at least in many countries). It would be best to think of tags
as simply identifiers for a type/class of map features. Yes, the English
meaning of the keys and values of tags usually match the feature, but they
don't always have to match.

For another thing, we tag Scientology churches as amenity=place_of_worship
in OSM but scientologists do not really perform any practice that we would
call "worship" or "devotion". So, going by your logic, tagging their
churches as amenity=place_of_worship is wrong. (The debate on whether
Scientology should be considered a religion or not is moot;
religion=scientologist is an established tag in OSM.)

Lastly, you mentioned about parking amenities and you think that these
should not be included in the area tagged as amenity=place_of_worship, but
that they could be included in a larger area tagged as landuse=religious.
But again, going by your logic, we should exclude all parking amenities and
other non-educational features from areas tagged as
amenity=school/college/university. But that is not the current practice.

To conclude, including the temple/mosque/church grounds—even if there is no
worshiping going on the grounds—in the area tagged as
amenity=place_of_worship is perfectly valid.


On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> Eugene, I am not ignoring anything, I am arguing and listening.
> My "90%" were labelled as a guess in a discussion ("quite certainly"),
> the "1/3 of them have building tags" comes from taginfo.
>
> You give examples from 6 places where particular mappers use this
> style, this is also not a statistic. I have seen this style as well,
> and it only reinforces the need to find a solution that suits the
> different situations.
>
> If you have knowledge how the act of worshipping in a Buddhist temple
> differs from a Christian church or Jewish synagogue, in particular in
> being focussed on a particular building vs. practised in a more spatial
> manner on the religious campus, that contribution would be welcome.
>
> So far we have identified the following use cases / situations:
>
> 1
> Building where worshipping ceremonies focus, surrounded by land which has
> a relation
> to the religion, and holds structures that are not used for the act of
> worshipping.
> The building often has architectural significance and stands out as a
> landmark.
>
> 2
> Places of worshipping that are not focused on a particular building, the
> ceremony is performed in a spacial manner, potentially in open space.
>
> 3
> Land which has a relation to the religion, holding e.g. administrative
> office
> buildings, seminar rooms, etc., but no particular building for worshipping
> ceremonies.
>
> 4
> Buildings that were erected for worshipping, thus still have the
> architectural significance and landmark character, but are now used for
> secular purposes, such as concert theatres or climbing halls. Some could be
> reactivated for the religious purpose by bringing the altar back.
>
> I still find a landuse tag very suitable for case 1 and 3, where calling
> the land *=place_of_worship would be a misnomer for the lack of ceremony.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>
>>
>> Thus the comparison with [amenity=school], that can be easily
>> expanded to the
>> whole campus, fails for [amenity=place_of_worship].
>>
>> To conclude, [amenity=place_of_worship] should not be expanded to the
>> full campus, and [landuse=religious] is a suitable, multicultural
>> tag for this land, comparable to [landuse=retail] or
>> [landuse=commercial]
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Thus "amenity=place_of_worship" is perfectly tailored to this
>> particular
>> building and its meaning should not be expanded to something it was
>> not
>> defined for initially. Keep in mind it is already used 611000 times,
>> only
>> 1/3 of them has a building tag, but quite certainly 90% of them are
>> buildings.
>>
>>
> Eugene Alvin Villar wrote, on 2014-08-26 23:34:
>
>  This completely ignores the current practice all over the world
>> (especially in Asia) where the landuse is already tagged with
>> amenity=place_of_worship. Some examples:
>>
>> Buddhist temples in Tokyo, Japan: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gi
>> Catholic churches in Manila, Philippines: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gj
>> Buddhist, Hindu, Methodist, and Muslim places of worship in Singapore:
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gk
>> Buddhist temples in Beijing, China: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gl
>> Hindu temples and Christian churches in Bangalore, India:
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gm
>> Buddhist temples in Bangkok, Thailand: http:/

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 27/ago/2014, alle ore 15:26, Tom Pfeifer  
> ha scritto:
> 
> How would you treat graveyards, as sacred and places of worship,
> or not? What about the parking on the property?


Usually graveyards (typically ancient burial places associated to a church and 
directly adjacent) will be part of the sacred area, yes (not to confuse with 
cemeteries). For parkings you'll have to check whether they are within or not, 
simple as that.


> 
> Would you agree we still need a method to tag remaining land,
> as in case 1 and 3?


For areas that are outside of the sacred area I'd usually use religion=* to 
express the affiliation with a religious institution and I'd use other tags 
like for any other object, eg landuse=commercial for a big area of the church 
administration (there are quite some in Rome ;-) ).

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 27/ago/2014, alle ore 13:54, Mateusz Konieczny 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> 2014-08-27 11:51 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer 
>> 
>> We've always said that generalizing a detailed mapping in an automatic way 
>> is possible
> 
> It is possible but sometimes it is really complicated. BTW, I frequently map 
> really small areas with their own landuses.


Not only might it be complicated, it also involves judgement and decisions - 
that's exactly the point why it should be done by the map maker and not by the 
data surveyor.

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Tom Pfeifer]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote, on 2014-08-27 12:05:


I'd like to bring the sacred area in (speaking about Christian religion here). 
In Italy we are using place of worship on the whole sacred area where known 
(I.e. Not only on the building). For practical reasons a lot of amenity 
placeofworships are still mapped on the church building alone, but this is 
considered preliminary until someone finds out the extension of the sacred area 
(where applicable, can also be the same as the church building in many cases).



Good, that would be considered in use case 2 in my previous mail.
I'd be happy to tag that as place_of_worship.

How would you treat graveyards, as sacred and places of worship,
or not? What about the parking on the property?

Would you agree we still need a method to tag remaining land,
as in case 1 and 3?

I'd still be in favour to have the landuse as the background on
which the various amenities are placed, from places_of_worship
over graveyard to parking.

tom


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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Mateusz Konieczny]

2014-08-27 11:51 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer 
>
> We've always said that generalizing a detailed mapping in an automatic way
> is possible
>

It is possible but sometimes it is really complicated. BTW, I frequently
map really small areas with their own landuses.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 27/ago/2014, alle ore 10:54, Tom Pfeifer  
> ha scritto:
> 
> If you have knowledge how the act of worshipping in a Buddhist temple
> differs from a Christian church or Jewish synagogue, in particular in
> being focussed on a particular building vs. practised in a more spatial
> manner on the religious campus, that contribution would be welcome..


I'd like to bring the sacred area in (speaking about Christian religion here). 
In Italy we are using place of worship on the whole sacred area where known 
(I.e. Not only on the building). For practical reasons a lot of amenity 
placeofworships are still mapped on the church building alone, but this is 
considered preliminary until someone finds out the extension of the sacred area 
(where applicable, can also be the same as the church building in many cases).

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 27/ago/2014, alle ore 10:47, Pieren  ha scritto:
> 
> Also I remember the time
> we always said that landuse is intended for small scale mapping, not a
> parcel scale.


I have never seen it like that. Where there is a significantly different use of 
the land, also on one parcel or sub parcel, I'd map this as such and won't 
incorporate it into a different landuse. We've always said that generalizing a 
detailed mapping in an automatic way is possible, while adding detail to 
pre-generalized maps is obviously not.

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Tom Pfeifer]

Eugene, I am not ignoring anything, I am arguing and listening.
My "90%" were labelled as a guess in a discussion ("quite certainly"),
the "1/3 of them have building tags" comes from taginfo.

You give examples from 6 places where particular mappers use this
style, this is also not a statistic. I have seen this style as well,
and it only reinforces the need to find a solution that suits the
different situations.

If you have knowledge how the act of worshipping in a Buddhist temple
differs from a Christian church or Jewish synagogue, in particular in
being focussed on a particular building vs. practised in a more spatial
manner on the religious campus, that contribution would be welcome.

So far we have identified the following use cases / situations:

1
Building where worshipping ceremonies focus, surrounded by land which has a 
relation
to the religion, and holds structures that are not used for the act of 
worshipping.
The building often has architectural significance and stands out as a landmark.

2
Places of worshipping that are not focused on a particular building, the
ceremony is performed in a spacial manner, potentially in open space.

3
Land which has a relation to the religion, holding e.g. administrative office
buildings, seminar rooms, etc., but no particular building for worshipping
ceremonies.

4
Buildings that were erected for worshipping, thus still have the
architectural significance and landmark character, but are now used for
secular purposes, such as concert theatres or climbing halls. Some could be
reactivated for the religious purpose by bringing the altar back.

I still find a landuse tag very suitable for case 1 and 3, where calling
the land *=place_of_worship would be a misnomer for the lack of ceremony.

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:


Thus the comparison with [amenity=school], that can be easily expanded to 
the
whole campus, fails for [amenity=place_of_worship].

To conclude, [amenity=place_of_worship] should not be expanded to the
full campus, and [landuse=religious] is a suitable, multicultural
tag for this land, comparable to [landuse=retail] or [landuse=commercial]

[...]

Thus "amenity=place_of_worship" is perfectly tailored to this particular
building and its meaning should not be expanded to something it was not
defined for initially. Keep in mind it is already used 611000 times, only
1/3 of them has a building tag, but quite certainly 90% of them are 
buildings.



Eugene Alvin Villar wrote, on 2014-08-26 23:34:

This completely ignores the current practice all over the world (especially in 
Asia) where the landuse is already tagged with amenity=place_of_worship. Some 
examples:

Buddhist temples in Tokyo, Japan: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gi
Catholic churches in Manila, Philippines: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gj
Buddhist, Hindu, Methodist, and Muslim places of worship in Singapore: 
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gk
Buddhist temples in Beijing, China: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gl
Hindu temples and Christian churches in Bangalore, India: 
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gm
Buddhist temples in Bangkok, Thailand: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gn

I would like to see how you came up with the "90% of them are buildings" 
statistic.



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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Pieren]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> If you want to expand the meaning of this tag you would need a migration
> strategy,
> but I don't see it necessary. "landuse=religious" is consistent with
> "commercial"
> or "retail", where you can have different retail amenities or businesses on
> the area. OSM tagging is not perfect, but we do not introduce a new
> inconsistency
> with this tag.

Religious areas can fit into a general "landuse" like "residential"
(or even why not "commercial", "retail", etc). It's not exclusive
(where another landuse polygon is normally). Also I remember the time
we always said that landuse is intended for small scale mapping, not a
parcel scale.

Pieren

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Tom Pfeifer 
wrote:

> Thus the comparison with [amenity=school], that can be easily expanded to
> the
> whole campus, fails for [amenity=place_of_worship].
>
> To conclude, [amenity=place_of_worship] should not be expanded to the
> full campus, and [landuse=religious] is a suitable, multicultural
> tag for this land, comparable to [landuse=retail] or [landuse=commercial]
>
> [...]
>
> Thus "amenity=place_of_worship" is perfectly tailored to this particular
> building and its meaning should not be expanded to something it was not
> defined for initially. Keep in mind it is already used 611000 times, only
> 1/3 of them has a building tag, but quite certainly 90% of them are
> buildings.
>

This completely ignores the current practice all over the world (especially
in Asia) where the landuse is already tagged with amenity=place_of_worship.
Some examples:

Buddhist temples in Tokyo, Japan: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gi
Catholic churches in Manila, Philippines: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gj
Buddhist, Hindu, Methodist, and Muslim places of worship in Singapore:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gk
Buddhist temples in Beijing, China: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gl
Hindu temples and Christian churches in Bangalore, India:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gm
Buddhist temples in Bangkok, Thailand: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gn

I would like to see how you came up with the "90% of them are buildings"
statistic.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Tom Pfeifer]

Pieren wrote, on 2014-08-26 18:07:

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:


Thus the comparison with [amenity=school], that can be easily expanded to
the
whole campus, fails for [amenity=place_of_worship].

[...]

I'm not following you here. Active or not doesn't change the fact that
now we have two different ways for tagging an amenity and its
surrounding area when we compare with "school", "hospital",
"university" or wahteveramenityyoulike. We don't need a
"landuse=school" because the amenity=school is already covering the
area, not the individual buildings.


Agreed, however the act of schooling is performed on the whole campus,
as the children run around the physical exercise site around the building.
Similarly, nearly all buildings on the hospital campus are used for
clinical treatments.


We have to follow the same logic for all features.


As long as it works. As you see life is not that easily structured
into simple categories.


The problem is that amenity=place_of_worship
rendering is for a building on the main map style. This could be fixed
by using a different style/colour/transparency if the tag
"amenity=place_of_worship" is combined or not with a tag "building=*".


Rendering was just mentioned for illustrating the current perspective, of course
that can be adjusted if needed.

If you keep recommending to tag the church with "amenity=place_of_worship"
then you should not use the same tag for the campus around. You would end with
an amenity within an amenity, with the same value.

Secondly, you would give the whole area a description of an activity that
is not performed there. People are not worshipping under the (free standing)
bell tower, or the group of trees next to the graveyard, they do in the
church/mosque/temple.

Thus "amenity=place_of_worship" is perfectly tailored to this particular
building and its meaning should not be expanded to something it was not
defined for initially. Keep in mind it is already used 611000 times, only
1/3 of them has a building tag, but quite certainly 90% of them are buildings.

If you want to expand the meaning of this tag you would need a migration 
strategy,
but I don't see it necessary. "landuse=religious" is consistent with 
"commercial"
or "retail", where you can have different retail amenities or businesses on
the area. OSM tagging is not perfect, but we do not introduce a new 
inconsistency
with this tag.




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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Pieren]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> Thus the comparison with [amenity=school], that can be easily expanded to
> the
> whole campus, fails for [amenity=place_of_worship].
>
> Thus, an active church building should be tagged
>   [amenity=place_of_worship]
>   [building=church]
>   [religion=*]
> and surrounded by
>   [landuse=religious]
>   [religion=*]

I'm not following you here. Active or not doesn't change the fact that
now we have two different ways for tagging an amenity and its
surrounding area when we compare with "school", "hospital",
"university" or wahteveramenityyoulike. We don't need a
"landuse=school" because the amenity=school is already covering the
area, not the individual buildings. We have to follow the same logic
for all features. The problem is that amenity=place_of_worship
rendering is for a building on the main map style. This could be fixed
by using a differente style/colour/transparency if the tag
"amenity=place_of_worship" is combined or not with a tag "building=*".
It's extremely sad and dangerous to create a precedent now just
because we have a rendering issue for one of the "amenity" keys.

Pieren

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Tom Pfeifer]

John Packer wrote, on 2014-08-26 16:57:

I'm not against landuse=religious, but I'm not satisfied with it's current 
description:

The area surrounding a amenity=place_of_worship used for religious purposes

I believe a tag such as landuse=religious is inevitably going to be used as 
indicating any kind of religious activity, not necessarily with 
amenity=place_of_worship.
Also, I believe amenity=place_of_worship is enough for indicating the religious 
area in most cases.


Certainly the definition can be refined. I think it is important to be
able to distinguish between

* the place where actual acts of worshipping happen,
  such as weekly/daily congregations in churches/mosques/temples,
  or people praying in front of wayside shrines [amenity=place_of_worship],

* and areas where priests are educated, live on church property next to
  the building, where church tax is counted and members are administered,
  where bell towers stand, etc. [landuse=religious]

Further those churches/mosques/temples are often architecturally significant
buildings that need to be distinguished from surrounding land even if it
is owned by the church. This is recognised currently by strong dark rendering
on the main map.

Another aspect is that nowadays often churches are no longer used for religious
purposes, but still being [building=church] architecture-wise, and could be
re-activated if needed.

Thus the comparison with [amenity=school], that can be easily expanded to the
whole campus, fails for [amenity=place_of_worship].

Thus, an active church building should be tagged
  [amenity=place_of_worship]
  [building=church]
  [religion=*]
and surrounded by
  [landuse=religious]
  [religion=*]

while in church building out-of-religion would be, for example
  [amenity=theatre]
  [building=church]
  [theatre:genre=chamber_music]

To conclude, [amenity=place_of_worship] should not be expanded to the
full campus, and [landuse=religious] is a suitable, multicultural
tag for this land, comparable to [landuse=retail] or [landuse=commercial]

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

[Tagging] Religious landuse

[John Packer]

Hi,

How did this topic turn out in the end?

The wiki page Tag:landuse=religious [1] was translated to yet another
language (japanese), and this tag is getting more uses (most likely due to
being included as a preset in JOSM[2]), so I assume it's becoming de facto

I'm not against landuse=religious, but I'm not satisfied with it's current
description:

> The area surrounding a amenity=place_of_worship used for religious purposes


I believe a tag such as landuse=religious is inevitably going to be used as
indicating any kind of religious activity, not necessarily with
amenity=place_of_worship.
Also, I believe amenity=place_of_worship is enough for indicating the
religious area in most cases.

Cheers,
John

[1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Alanduse%3Dreligious
[2]: http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/10262
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 01.08.2014 14:31, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> 2014-08-01 12:36 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann  >:
> 
> On 31.07.2014 11 :54, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > Didn't JOSM include landuse=religion in the latest version ?
> 
> An editor bug sounds like a good explanation for the occurencies of that
> erroneous tag in the database.
> 
> 
> a) It is a really recent change b) You may dislike this feature but it is
> not a bug.

It is a bug because that tag is not approved. An editor should allow
*manual* input of non-standard tags, but any hardcoded inclusion in select
lists or whatever is an evil propagation by which editor developers bypass
the proper proposal process, bullying the community, disrespecting their
democratic rights.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

2014-08-01 12:36 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann :

> On 31.07.2014 11:54, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > Didn't JOSM include landuse=religion in the latest version ?
>
> An editor bug sounds like a good explanation for the occurencies of that
> erroneous tag in the database.
>

a) It is a really recent change b) You may dislike this feature but it is
not a bug.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 31.07.2014 11:54, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Didn't JOSM include landuse=religion in the latest version ?

An editor bug sounds like a good explanation for the occurencies of that
erroneous tag in the database.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 31.07.2014 17:17, Jesse B. Crawford wrote:
> As a perhaps helpful example, near my old home in Portland, OR, USA there
> was a "retreat" facility operated by the catholic diocese. It featured
> extensive grounds that you might call a park, except that they were fenced
> and intended for religious or reflective use, with shrines and such placed
> throughout. This is visible in iD
> at 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?relation=186579#map=18/45.49915/-122.61703,
> and you will see that it is currently not marked with any polygon (although
> there is a point for the church and school with the same operator).
> 
> I think there should be a polygon for this site, but a 'park' tagging is not
> really appropriate since it is not open to the public and not intended for
> many of the uses of a park anyway (e.g. you wouldn't run your dog there).
> But I'm not sure how it being out of public access changes the situation.

There are many private parks, e.g. around castles or mansions owned by rich
people such as popstar Madonna. I would say that a park is just a recreation
ground with a mosaic of trees, footways, and lawns. Whether it is public or
not, we can specify with access=* tags. I also know of some public parks
where it is forbidden to unleash dogs, because they are not wanted to shit
in the lawns and flower-beds.

Reflective use is not limited to relogious thoughts. Some people reflect on
their jobs, their families, their hobbies etc. or they compose poetry or music.

In your example, the whole area is inside and certainly part of a
residential area, although the school is not primarily used for living. But
it is not primarily used for religion either. The school actually has
nothing to do with religion, except that it is owned by a diocese. Around 5%
of Austrian forests are owned by the catholic church. Does that make a
religious use?

The buildings in the middle and in the northeastern corner of the area look
residential on the arial image.  There's a park in the northern half of the
area. I can imagine that there are plenty of shrines, chapels and alike in
the park. But after all, it's a park. These kind of parks exist here in
Austria too, e.g. adjacent to monasteries. These parks are somewhat dark and
spooky due to the big old trees which have grown over centuries.

In my home district, there is a facility similar to yours, also containing a
church and a school:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78589643

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[John Sturdy]

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Jesse B. Crawford  wrote:
> As a perhaps helpful example, near my old home in Portland, OR, USA there
> was a "retreat" facility operated by the catholic diocese. It featured
> extensive grounds that you might call a park, except that they were fenced
> and intended for religious or reflective use, with shrines and such placed
> throughout.

I think that landuse=religous would be appropriate for this.

__John

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Jesse B. Crawford]

 

As a perhaps helpful example, near my old home in Portland, OR, USA
there was a "retreat" facility operated by the catholic diocese. It
featured extensive grounds that you might call a park, except that they
were fenced and intended for religious or reflective use, with shrines
and such placed throughout. This is visible in iD at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?relation=186579#map=18/45.49915/-122.61703
[3], and you will see that it is currently not marked with any polygon
(although there is a point for the church and school with the same
operator). 

I think there should be a polygon for this site, but a 'park' tagging is
not really appropriate since it is not open to the public and not
intended for many of the uses of a park anyway (e.g. you wouldn't run
your dog there). But I'm not sure how it being out of public access
changes the situation. 

---
Jesse B. Crawford
Student, Information Technology
New Mexico Inst. of Mining & Tech

https://jbcrawford.us || je...@jbcrawford.us
https://cs.nmt.edu/~jcrawford || jcrawf...@cs.nmt.edu

On 2014-07-31 06:48 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 

> 2014-07-31 14:31 GMT+02:00 Tom Pfeifer :
> 
>> If you look at http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=religious#map 
>> [1] you see
>> the highest density of use in Poland and Ireland, where apparently a lot of
>> constellations are in need for such a tag.
>> 
>> Certainly it does not target a prayer room in a multifunctional building or a
>> church squeezed wall-to-wall into a row of inner-city terraced buildings.
> 
> I agree that words like "nonesense" should be kept out of constructive 
> discussions. 
> 
> Could you give some examples where landuse=religious does make sense? I have 
> not seen any definition for this so far. What would be a religious 
> activity/usage, that is not worshipping and is not covered by other landuses? 
> Are you aware of the possibility to add "religion=*" and "denomination=*" to 
> any feature to mark religious affiliation?
> 
> Do you agree on putting amenity=place_of_worship on the sacred area, and not 
> just on the building (e.g. church)?
> 
> FYI, I am mapping in Rome and so far we haven't yet discovered a need for 
> landuse=religious despite the fact there are really lots of features related 
> to the catholic church (I have read estimates that one fourth of the city of 
> Rome is owned by the catholic church).
> 
> cheers, 
> Martin 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [2]
 

Links:
--
[1] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=religious#map
[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[3]
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?relation=186579#map=18/45.49915/-122.61703___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Andreas Goss]

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/233316289/history
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/233031632/history

They got replaced. But I admit it was less common than I thought. Just 
happened to click on one of those.




There is not even one amenity=church_yard or churchyard (the latter
being the correct spelling).
Maybe you are confusing this with amenity=graveyard? These are burial
places on sacred ground aside a church (as opposed to cemetery).

IMHO if these (fenced) areas are on sacred ground,
amenity=place_of_worship should extend to there.



__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-07-31 15:33 GMT+02:00 Andreas Goss :

> He put an area around every church maybe 5-15m distance, that's pretty
> much it. I admit it really looks like it's typical there to have a fence
> sourounding a small area around the church, but do we need a landuse tag
> for that, especially such a generic one?
>
> Previously it was often tagged as amenity=church_yard, which was pretty
> accurate in what it wanted to represent.
>


There is not even one amenity=church_yard or churchyard (the latter being
the correct spelling).
Maybe you are confusing this with amenity=graveyard? These are burial
places on sacred ground aside a church (as opposed to cemetery).

IMHO if these (fenced) areas are on sacred ground, amenity=place_of_worship
should extend to there.

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Andreas Goss]

If you look at
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=religious#map you see
the highest density of use in Poland and Ireland, where apparently a lot of
constellations are in need for such a tag.


As far as I can see from Poland it is mainly the work of one mapper:
https://www.google.com/#q=site:www.openstreetmap.org%2Fway%2F+landuse%3Dreligious+W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw+Komorek

He put an area around every church maybe 5-15m distance, that's pretty 
much it. I admit it really looks like it's typical there to have a fence 
sourounding a small area around the church, but do we need a landuse tag 
for that, especially such a generic one?


Previously it was often tagged as amenity=church_yard, which was pretty 
accurate in what it wanted to represent.


"A churchyard is a patch of land adjoining or surrounding a church, 
which is usually owned by the relevant church or local parish itself."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchyard

__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[fly]

Am 31.07.2014 06:24, schrieb Friedrich Volkmann:
> On 16.07.2014 13:52, John Packer wrote:
>> I saw on the wiki there was some changes on pages related to religious 
>> landuse.
>> It seems there is this tag that was documented only recently (but has around
>> 1500 uses, mostly on Europe), and is called landuse=religious
> 
> I also wondered about that addition, which I find completely useless. A park
> or garden around a church or temple is a leisure=park or leisure=garden in
> the first place. A religious school is an amenity=school. A dormitory is
> (part of) a landuse=residential. You can always add a religion=* tag to
> these features. But religion is really not a landuse.

+1

I would not call it "completely useless" but landuse=religious is wrong.

We need some different key or simply use religious=* but I start to
repeat myself.

cu fly


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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-07-31 14:31 GMT+02:00 Tom Pfeifer :

> If you look at http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=religious#map
> you see
> the highest density of use in Poland and Ireland, where apparently a lot of
> constellations are in need for such a tag.
>
> Certainly it does not target a prayer room in a multifunctional building
> or a
> church squeezed wall-to-wall into a row of inner-city terraced buildings.
>



I agree that words like "nonesense" should be kept out of constructive
discussions.

Could you give some examples where landuse=religious does make sense? I
have not seen any definition for this so far. What would be a religious
activity/usage, that is not worshipping and is not covered by other
landuses? Are you aware of the possibility to add "religion=*" and
"denomination=*" to any feature to mark religious affiliation?

Do you agree on putting amenity=place_of_worship on the sacred area, and
not just on the building (e.g. church)?

FYI, I am mapping in Rome and so far we haven't yet discovered a need for
landuse=religious despite the fact there are really lots of features
related to the catholic church (I have read estimates that one fourth of
the city of Rome is owned by the catholic church).

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Tom Pfeifer]

-1 to "removing"
as well, and I would appreciate a constructive discussion that does not qualify
the thoughts of others as "nonsense", as long as they are not clearly malicious.

If you look at http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=religious#map you 
see
the highest density of use in Poland and Ireland, where apparently a lot of
constellations are in need for such a tag.

Certainly it does not target a prayer room in a multifunctional building or a
church squeezed wall-to-wall into a row of inner-city terraced buildings.

I will work on a summary of the pro and con arguments heard so far over the 
weekend.

Tom

Mateusz Konieczny wrote, on 2014-07-31 12:06:

-1

2014-07-31 11:47 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>>:

 > Am 31/lug/2014 um 06:24 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann mailto:b...@volki.at>>:
 >
 > Therefore, I suggest removing landuse=religion from the wiki, or at 
least to
 > mark it as nonsensical.

+1,

Martin



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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

-1


2014-07-31 11:47 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
>
> > Am 31/lug/2014 um 06:24 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann :
> >
> > Therefore, I suggest removing landuse=religion from the wiki, or at
> least to
> > mark it as nonsensical.
>
>
> +1,
>
> 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] Religious landuse?

[Marc Gemis]

Didn't JOSM include landuse=religion in the latest version ?


On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> > Am 31/lug/2014 um 06:24 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann :
> >
> > Therefore, I suggest removing landuse=religion from the wiki, or at
> least to
> > mark it as nonsensical.
>
>
> +1,
>
> 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] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 31/lug/2014 um 06:24 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann :
> 
> Therefore, I suggest removing landuse=religion from the wiki, or at least to
> mark it as nonsensical.


+1,

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 16.07.2014 13:52, John Packer wrote:
> I saw on the wiki there was some changes on pages related to religious 
> landuse.
> It seems there is this tag that was documented only recently (but has around
> 1500 uses, mostly on Europe), and is called landuse=religious

I also wondered about that addition, which I find completely useless. A park
or garden around a church or temple is a leisure=park or leisure=garden in
the first place. A religious school is an amenity=school. A dormitory is
(part of) a landuse=residential. You can always add a religion=* tag to
these features. But religion is really not a landuse.

Therefore, I suggest removing landuse=religion from the wiki, or at least to
mark it as nonsensical.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 27/lug/2014 um 08:49 schrieb johnw :
> 
> I think adding a subtag would eventually depreciate the amenity=townhall , 
> community_centre / community_hall, and library - at least as stand-alone 
> facilities


I don't think so. It would be regression to step back from townhall and library 
to "civic" and subtag with absolutely no benefit. In the case of libraries a 
civic main tag might make things even worse, splitting libraries into public 
and privately run libraries...


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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[johnw]

On Jul 26, 2014, at 5:59 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>  in this field (government agencies/institutions/services) we are lacking 
> almost all tags, but I would prefer to use something different than landuse 
> (or subtag for landuse) 


We're talking about a very simple landuse=civic (which would let us mark out 
the land) and a civic=* tag, which can go with building=civic (or stand alone). 
Or we can add more tags into amenity, though I like the subtag better. 

I think adding a subtag would eventually depreciate the amenity=townhall , 
community_centre / community_hall, and library - at least as stand-alone 
facilities (Amenity=library would still have a prominent place in mapping 
school campuses). 

we don't need to define the building function though landuse, but just the 
class of building it falls under, just like industrial, commercial, and retail 
- those three cover vastly different business and building structures easily 
under 3 tags. 

Then we have shop=* for the shops, and other business and amenity tags to cover 
the other things. 


Civic=* can cover: 

Supernational, national, regional, and city admin buildings - From the UN down 
to Village branch offices of the city hall. 

Capitals often have huge office buildings devoted to the governmental offices 
or supporting the legislative bodies, 
or regional branches, like the massive US "Federal Buildings" 
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0557856,-118.448092,467m/data=!3m1!1e3 

=super_admin
=embassy
=national_admin
=regional_admin 
=city_admin
=town_admin
=village_admin
=admin_office (general/unknown)

Pension offices, tax offices, auto registration, and other Non-emergency 
government facilities that you have to visit to speak with a government 
official for some reason.  

=pension
=taxation
=health_office (VA, public heath insurance, etc - a place for paperwork, not 
medial treatment)
=vehicle_reg - DMV, avaition, boating, etc
=passport
=immigration  <-this is huge and missing. Finding immigration offcies is a huge 
deal. 
=judicial   (courthouses, city attorney offices, etc)
=incarceration (prisons, jails, work camps,)
=checkpoint (immigration checkpoint, fruit&veg inspection, weigh stations,, 
border crossings, etc)  **not the physical gate** - but the whole facility. 
they are usually quite large. 

Public facilities that offer service to you somehow

=library
=community_center
= rec_center  (a collection of disparate amenities) 


interested in what you like and dislike. 


Javbw







stand-alone Public libraries, recreation centers and community centers, which 
are often complexes of some kind. 





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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 26/lug/2014 um 03:09 schrieb John Willis :
> 
> does give the greatest benefit - because paired with a civic= sub tag, it can 
> help define a myriad of governmentish buildings and services that are beyond 
> the scope of city halls and community centers.


agree that in this field (government agencies/institutions/services) we are 
lacking almost all tags, but I would prefer to use something different than 
landuse (or subtag for landuse) for these, eg amenity, office or some new key.

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 25/lug/2014 um 18:48 schrieb John Packer :
> 
> I don't know how common this practice is, but sometimes I see things like 
> landuse=commercial and landuse=residential applied to a relatively large area.


yes, the size and generalization level vary a lot, but the tendency is to get 
them more detailed. Also other elements sometimes start very rough and get 
refined successively 

Obviously also the actual urban layout varies a lot from one place to another


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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[John Willis]

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 26, 2014, at 1:38 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 2014-07-25 3:33 GMT+02:00 johnw :
>> But for a majority of the buildings I'm mapping here in rural/"suburban" 
>> Japan, there isn't as much mixed use or repurposed use as you would imagine 
>> - most homes are purpose-built 2 story, single family detached homes with a 
>> wall around them.  It is very easy to designate their use.
> 
> 
> yes, this is simple. You draw one, tag it and copy paste to bigger 
> configurations and then cp all over the place ;-)

There's copy-paste in iD now?! ^_^

For that reason alone, I tried potlatch, and looked into JOSM. 

>  
>> ..., a cemetery, a buddhist temple, a 7-11, and ~10 detached homes. this is 
>> all within around 300m of my house in "rural" Japan. but every one of those 
>> has an easily defined border associated with the buildings - and an easily 
>> understood landuse tag to go with them. 
>> 500m away is an elementary school, with no landuse value. it depends on 
>> amenity=school for **some unknown reason** to define it's landuse. Until 
>> recently, the temple also had no landuse value to define the area the temple 
>> grounds occupy, but now landuse=religious exists.
> 
> 
> Maybe those landuse values haven't been proposed so far because the main 
> mapnik map didn't "need" them, the style painted these amenity areas already 
> ;-)
> e.g. amenity=school/university implies landuse=education. In case of 
> religious things you will also have a "religion" attribute. You could of 
> course add additional landuse tags, but how would that bring a benefit?

Well, it would bring a little standardization to the landuse, and hopefully 
make mapping areas for the buildings more accessible. People are mad-tracing 
huge swaths of buildings in Tokyo now, and they are not mapping any 
non-building areas whatsoever, besides a crude outline of a park or two.  

Anything that can standardize the mapping of areas and make the gagging process 
more transparent is a good thing. 

Choose the landuse, choose the building & sub-tag, and map the amenities in the 
the landuse. For every single building, no matter the type. 

> The civic landuse sounds more interesting, because the list of possible 
> building types and users can be quite long and there is no religion-like 
> common attribute (or is it?).

I think in the short term, landuse=civic does give the greatest benefit - 
because paired with a civic= sub tag, it can help define a myriad of 
governmentish buildings and services that are beyond the scope of city halls 
and community centers.  In my experience, people look at governmental 
facilities much different that a standard office - just like a school or 
hospital - and marking the landuse would be the first step in having their area 
render differently, like we color the other major landuses. 


But I wanted to explain my thinking about why I wanted the other land uses- 
Make some documented consistency. 

As OSM's tagging scheme becomes more complex, consistency will be the biggest 
battle, as to encourage noobs (like me) and (maybe?) make the dataset and 
rendering better too. 

Thanks for the input.  

And, um... How do I go about submitting landuse= civic? I guess I'll hit the 
wiki again.

Javbw

> 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] Religious landuse?

[fly]

Am 25.07.2014 18:48, schrieb John Packer:
> I don't know how common this practice is, but sometimes I see things
> like landuse=commercial and landuse=residential applied to a relatively
> large area.

Exactly, we should first clarify the proposed use of landuse=*. Is it
considered for large areas or is it to turn into smaller and small
areas. Part of it is just starting as more values are tagged and forests
are spitted in parts as you add more specific tags.

Second, we should clarify how to tag the borders. In my region the
landuse is often tagged onto the highway cause of missing
landuse=highway. In same parts all landuses were changed into
multipolygons using the highways as borders and thus splitting the
highway quite often. There I am usually not motivated to change any
landuse as it is way to cumbersome.

In Germany there are different restrictions about parking bigger
vehicles in the street, e.g. your are not allowed to in "closed"
residential areas but are allowed to in mixed, commercial, industrials.
Think we need a different/new key for that, similar to the new
boundary=urban in Brazil.

Third we need to reorganize the structure for the key/values either by
subgrouping or by adding missing values or by deciding that we do not
need to use landuse everywhere but have other tags.

Comparing are landuse, we are missing some values like civic and highway
but landuse=religious simply does not fit. How about landuse=atheistic
or even better tagging all landuse=religious, religion=atheist ?


Please, once more use something else but not landuse=religious. Use
operator=* and religion=* + denomination=* and some new key if needed
but not landuse.

Cheers fly.

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[John Packer]

I don't know how common this practice is, but sometimes I see things like
landuse=commercial and landuse=residential applied to a relatively large
area.


2014-07-25 13:38 GMT-03:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
> 2014-07-25 3:33 GMT+02:00 johnw :
>
> But for a majority of the buildings I'm mapping here in rural/"suburban"
>> Japan, there isn't as much mixed use or repurposed use as you would imagine
>> - most homes are purpose-built 2 story, single family detached homes with a
>> wall around them.  It is very easy to designate their use.
>>
>
>
> yes, this is simple. You draw one, tag it and copy paste to bigger
> configurations and then cp all over the place ;-)
>
>
>
>> ..., a cemetery, a buddhist temple, a 7-11, and ~10 detached homes. this
>> is all within around 300m of my house in "rural" Japan. but every one of
>> those has an easily defined border associated with the buildings - and an
>> easily understood landuse tag to go with them.
>>
> 500m away is an elementary school, with no landuse value. it depends on
>> amenity=school for **some unknown reason** to define it's landuse. Until
>> recently, the temple also had no landuse value to define the area the
>> temple grounds occupy, but now landuse=religious exists.
>>
>
>
> Maybe those landuse values haven't been proposed so far because the main
> mapnik map didn't "need" them, the style painted these amenity areas
> already ;-)
> e.g. amenity=school/university implies landuse=education. In case of
> religious things you will also have a "religion" attribute. You could of
> course add additional landuse tags, but how would that bring a benefit?
> The civic landuse sounds more interesting, because the list of possible
> building types and users can be quite long and there is no religion-like
> common attribute (or is it?).
>
> 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] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-07-25 3:33 GMT+02:00 johnw :

> But for a majority of the buildings I'm mapping here in rural/"suburban"
> Japan, there isn't as much mixed use or repurposed use as you would imagine
> - most homes are purpose-built 2 story, single family detached homes with a
> wall around them.  It is very easy to designate their use.
>


yes, this is simple. You draw one, tag it and copy paste to bigger
configurations and then cp all over the place ;-)



> ..., a cemetery, a buddhist temple, a 7-11, and ~10 detached homes. this
> is all within around 300m of my house in "rural" Japan. but every one of
> those has an easily defined border associated with the buildings - and an
> easily understood landuse tag to go with them.
>
500m away is an elementary school, with no landuse value. it depends on
> amenity=school for **some unknown reason** to define it's landuse. Until
> recently, the temple also had no landuse value to define the area the
> temple grounds occupy, but now landuse=religious exists.
>


Maybe those landuse values haven't been proposed so far because the main
mapnik map didn't "need" them, the style painted these amenity areas
already ;-)
e.g. amenity=school/university implies landuse=education. In case of
religious things you will also have a "religion" attribute. You could of
course add additional landuse tags, but how would that bring a benefit?
The civic landuse sounds more interesting, because the list of possible
building types and users can be quite long and there is no religion-like
common attribute (or is it?).

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[johnw]

Martin - thanks for the thoughtful reply. 

I read it carefully, and I think you kind of misunderstood me again, please 
bare with me. 


On Jul 24, 2014, at 9:07 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> 2014-07-24 1:01 GMT+02:00 johnw :
> My Main question is on my understanding of the landuse+building tagging 
> scheme.
> 
> 
> I don't think there is a 1:1 relationship. "building" describes the type of 
> the building, while landuse the _use_ of the land

But the ratio of single use to mixed use in many environs I have been in (both 
Japan & California, at least) is probably close to 10:1. Tokyo is gonna be a 
lot worse, but most of the actual "land" in Japan is dominated by (slowly 
dying) suburban towns and villages spread out across the countryside, Just as 
Southern California is dominated by fast swaths of suburban detached houses. 

I'm talking about the building+landuse combos for this "single use" environment 
for now.

> .
> Just yesterday evening I saw a mosque in the ground floor of a residential 
> building and I have seen a lot of "churches" in similar settings (which I 
> surely won't tag as building=church but they get an amenity=place_of_worship).
> In Berlin there is a museum inside a train station. IMHO this is still a 
> building=train_station (some parts, there are also extensions which are 
> building=storage/warehouse) even if it was used only from 1846-1884 as such.
> see
> http://www.smb.museum/en/museums-and-institutions/hamburger-bahnhof/home.html
> and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_Bahnhof

That is a beautiful train station!  Totally building=train_station & 
tourism=museum,  but not railway=station, right?
It's a lot nicer than my local station: building=roof + amenity=shelter + 
shelter_type=public_transport.
http://goo.gl/maps/ppGOE

> Another example would be a former public swimming pool which is now used as a 
> hackspace and eventspace:
> http://www.stattbad.net/info/about/location
> Or a church which now houses a library after having been desecrated.

You are absolutely right, there are a lot of mixed use cases, and being able to 
represent mixed use is a challenge (business on 1st floor, residential above, 
or old-use new-use buildings like the train station above.  Because of 
non-existant zoning in Japan, there are quite a few "home businesses" in solid 
residential neighborhoods - a shop inside a single room of a house. Not an 
attached building either -  the owner can walk from their kitchen into their 
hair salon without even a door separating the two - just a step down from the 
delicate house flooring to a solid floor where you wear shoes.


> 
> these are some more extreme examples, but there are lots of others similar 
> cases. In some instances the mapper might decide that the transformation the 
> building underwent was so complete that the building type has changed with 
> the new use, but in others it might have been intentional to keep structure 
> and references to the former use. 



But for a majority of the buildings I'm mapping here in rural/"suburban" Japan, 
there isn't as much mixed use or repurposed use as you would imagine - most 
homes are purpose-built 2 story, single family detached homes with a wall 
around them.  It is very easy to designate their use. most of them are built on 
land subdivided from old rice fields, so things are fairly spread out compared 
to the city center. This goes with shops/stripmalls, convenience stores, 
hospitals, schools, apartments, and other buildings.  I live near a corn field, 
an aprtment complex, a cow farm, an metal stamping shop, a hula dance studio, a 
car repair shop, 3 farmyards, mushroom greenhouses, a cemetery, a buddhist 
temple, a 7-11, and ~10 detached homes. this is all within around 300m of my 
house in "rural" Japan. but every one of those has an easily defined border 
associated with the buildings - and an easily understood landuse tag to go with 
them. 

500m away is an elementary school, with no landuse value. it depends on 
amenity=school for **some unknown reason** to define it's landuse. Until 
recently, the temple also had no landuse value to define the area the temple 
grounds occupy, but now landuse=religious exists.

> 
>  
> Because OSM tags have grown organically, there are rough systems for tagging 
> objects, but there seems to be a clash of those systems when it comes to 
> mapping area+building for common town building types.
> 
> 
> yes, documentation of building types is poor, but this is also due to the 
> plurality of building types, there are lots of them.

It's not the building types themselves I'm trying to discuss - but the scheme 
of building+landuse or building+amenity that maps the building+land. 
with the myriad of building types, I understand the need for a lot of tags - 
and it seems like the multiple values for a main tag 
(eg: building=church/chapel/cathedral/etc) is slowing being replaced with 
maintag+subtag  (eg; building=shop shop=*), but that is a discus

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-07-24 1:01 GMT+02:00 johnw :

> My Main question is on my understanding of the landuse+building tagging
> scheme.
>


I don't think there is a 1:1 relationship. "building" describes the type of
the building, while landuse the _use_ of the land.
Just yesterday evening I saw a mosque in the ground floor of a residential
building and I have seen a lot of "churches" in similar settings (which I
surely won't tag as building=church but they get an
amenity=place_of_worship).
In Berlin there is a museum inside a train station. IMHO this is still a
building=train_station (some parts, there are also extensions which are
building=storage/warehouse) even if it was used only from 1846-1884 as such.
see
http://www.smb.museum/en/museums-and-institutions/hamburger-bahnhof/home.html
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_Bahnhof
Another example would be a former public swimming pool which is now used as
a hackspace and eventspace:
http://www.stattbad.net/info/about/location
Or a church which now houses a library after having been desecrated.

these are some more extreme examples, but there are lots of others similar
cases. In some instances the mapper might decide that the transformation
the building underwent was so complete that the building type has changed
with the new use, but in others it might have been intentional to keep
structure and references to the former use.



> Because OSM tags have grown organically, there are rough systems for
> tagging objects, but there seems to be a clash of those systems when it
> comes to mapping area+building for common town building types.
>


yes, documentation of building types is poor, but this is also due to the
plurality of building types, there are lots of them.


>
>
> So (1), as a noob tagger, I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding
> something when it comes to mapping houses, businesses, industrial, etc -
> because I see landuse categories as a great way to map the usable land the
> building and it's **related** amenities.
>


something is generally related (spatially), when the areas overlap or one
is inside the other. You do not need tags for this.



>
> Since I am having trouble conveying this to you, I made a chart. it is a
> little big (120KB) to be on the mailing list, so I put it online.
> http://www.javbw.com/chart.png
>


I understand the intention of this chart, but I believe it is
oversimplistic and not useful for practical mapping. "house" is a quite
generic type, e.g. I'd go for something more specific like
"detached_house", "terraced_house" etc., or rather than building=industrial
there could be "production_hall", "warehouse" etc. (which are still quite
generic types and might merit subtagging, e.g. "packing_warehouse"). Inside
an industrial area you'll often find different typologies of industrial
buildings (and also commercial buildings and maybe even residential
buildings like a villa for the owner).


>
>
> I want to simplify tagging areas and buildings by having enough landuse
> tags to cover the major types
>


agreed, there are some missing values, mostly these are tags that would
cover areas that are already covered by a tag that is in a different
namespace than "landuse" (i.e. introducing those tags would merely
duplicate the existing information but might simplify evaluation of the
data/simple mid zoom renderings etc.).
E.g. we might want something for highly mixed spaces like you can find them
in the centre of traditional european cities (mixed between residential,
commercial, retail, education, culture, religion, health but typically not
industrial).



> Most beginning mappers aren't going to be in JOSM or Potlach, but use iD
> and the wiki (me currently)
>


Yes, tagging using presets bears generally the problem that you have to get
the meaning of a tag from one word and that you have to trust in the
interpretations that the makers of your editor / preset have applied.
Getting to know the basic keys and values and then search (and have a look
at taginfo) seems like a viable but timeconsuming solution, and I agree
that the wiki is not always easy to read (you'd have to look also on the
history for every article, due to wikifiddling) and I am sure there are
lots of inconsistencies no matter how hard we try...



> - and the arbitrariness of the tagging system documented in the wiki is
> very difficult to internalize, so you can map without constant reference to
> the wiki to find out what different tagging schema this area+building has
> vs all the rest (townhall vs a house vs a school are all completely
> different for no **necessary** reason).
>


they are not different at all:
building=detached_house
building=townhall
building=school

they are completely consistent ;-)

Now for the functions:
amenity=townhall
amenity=school
no tag for a private residence (not mapped due to privacy concerns)

also completely consistent.


 cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.or

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-07-24 1:01 GMT+02:00 johnw :

> My Main question is on my understanding of the landuse+building tagging
> scheme.
>


I don't think there is a 1:1 relationship. "building" describes the type of
the building, while landuse the _use_ of the land.
Just yesterday evening I saw a mosque in the ground floor of a residential
building and I have seen a lot of "churches" in similar settings (which I
surely won't tag as building=church but they get an
amenity=place_of_worship).
In Berlin there is a museum inside a train station. IMHO this is still a
building=train_station (some parts, there are also extensions which are
building=storage/warehouse) even if it was used only from 1846-1884 as such.
see
http://www.smb.museum/en/museums-and-institutions/hamburger-bahnhof/home.html
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_Bahnhof
Another example would be a former public swimming pool which is now used as
a hackspace and eventspace:
http://www.stattbad.net/info/about/location
Or a church which now houses a library after having been desecrated.

these are some more extreme examples, but there are lots of others similar
cases. In some instances the mapper might decide that the transformation
the building underwent was so complete that the building type has changed
with the new use, but in others it might have been intentional to keep
structure and references to the former use.



> Because OSM tags have grown organically, there are rough systems for
> tagging objects, but there seems to be a clash of those systems when it
> comes to mapping area+building for common town building types.
>


yes, documentation of building types is poor, but this is also due to the
plurality of building types, there are lots of them.


>
>
> So (1), as a noob tagger, I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding
> something when it comes to mapping houses, businesses, industrial, etc -
> because I see landuse categories as a great way to map the usable land the
> building and it's **related** amenities.
>


something is generally related (spatially), when the areas overlap or one
is inside the other. You do not need tags for this.



>
> Since I am having trouble conveying this to you, I made a chart. it is a
> little big (120KB) to be on the mailing list, so I put it online.
> http://www.javbw.com/chart.png
>


I understand the intention of this chart, but I believe it is
oversimplistic and not useful for practical mapping. "house" is a quite
generic type, e.g. I'd go for something more specific like
"detached_house", "terraced_house" etc., or rather than building=industrial
there could be "production_hall", "warehouse" etc. (which are still quite
generic types and might merit subtagging, e.g. "packing_warehouse"). Inside
an industrial area you'll often find different typologies of industrial
buildings (and also commercial buildings and maybe even residential
buildings like a villa for the owner).


>
>
> I want to simplify tagging areas and buildings by having enough landuse
> tags to cover the major types
>


agreed, there are some missing values, mostly these are tags that would
cover areas that are already covered by a tag that is in a different
namespace than "landuse" (i.e. introducing those tags would merely
duplicate the existing information but might simplify evaluation of the
data/simple mid zoom renderings etc.).
E.g. we might want something for highly mixed spaces like you can find them
in the centre of traditional european cities (mixed between residential,
commercial, retail, education, culture, religion, health but typically not
industrial).



> Most beginning mappers aren't going to be in JOSM or Potlach, but use iD
> and the wiki (me currently)
>


Yes, tagging using presets bears generally the problem that you have to get
the meaning of a tag from one word and that you have to trust in the
interpretations that the makers of your editor / preset have applied.
Getting to know the basic keys and values and then search (and have a look
at taginfo) seems like a viable but timeconsuming solution, and I agree
that the wiki is not always easy to read (you'd have to look also on the
history for every article, due to wikifiddling) and I am sure there are
lots of inconsistencies no matter how hard we try...



> - and the arbitrariness of the tagging system documented in the wiki is
> very difficult to internalize, so you can map without constant reference to
> the wiki to find out what different tagging schema this area+building has
> vs all the rest (townhall vs a house vs a school are all completely
> different for no **necessary** reason).
>


they are not different at all:
building=detached_house
building=townhall
building=school

they are completely consistent ;-)

Now for the functions:
amenity=townhall
amenity=school
no tag for a private residence (not mapped due to privacy concerns)

also completely consistent.


 cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.or

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[johnw]

On Jul 21, 2014, at 10:06 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
wrote:

> I am not sure if I completely understand your question. I think the "rest" 
> (or whole area) can evventually be split over different landuses, that is not 
> a problem itself. "landuse" is not suited (IMHO) to create a feature on its 
> own (besides that of the use of land).

My Main question is on my understanding of the landuse+building tagging scheme. 
Because OSM tags have grown organically, there are rough systems for tagging 
objects, but there seems to be a clash of those systems when it comes to 
mapping area+building for common town building types. 

So (1), as a noob tagger, I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding 
something when it comes to mapping houses, businesses, industrial, etc - 
because I see landuse categories as a great way to map the usable land the 
building and it's **related** amenities.

Therefore (2), I want to add the "missing" landuses that would extend to civic 
buildings (hence the landuse=civic discussion), defend landuse=religious, and 
yes, eventually get around to =education - because those are the landuses 
missing for a large class of buildings in every town in the world. 

I want to standardize the landuse+building tag scheme by adding some missing 
tags.

Since I am having trouble conveying this to you, I made a chart. it is a little 
big (120KB) to be on the mailing list, so I put it online. 
http://www.javbw.com/chart.png


I want to simplify tagging areas and buildings by having enough landuse tags to 
cover the major types - and a more simplified tagging scheme overall will 
convert more of the noob taggers who sign up for OSM into actual mappers, which 
currently has a very low conversion rate.  Most beginning mappers aren't going 
to be in JOSM or Potlach, but use iD and the wiki (me currently) - and the 
arbitrariness of the tagging system documented in the wiki is very difficult to 
internalize, so you can map without constant reference to the wiki to find out 
what different tagging schema this area+building has vs all the rest (townhall 
vs a house vs a school are all completely different for no **necessary** 
reason).  

Consistently applied tagging schema is an easy way to do this, and since 
mapping areas+buildings is a major part of OSM, making the landuse tag more 
consistent seems to be an easy way to help this - especially when it is adds 
(at most) 2 or 3 additional large categories (on the same level as retail or 
residential). The tagging mailing list seems to be the place to discuss such 
improvements.

So here I am, suggesting Landuse=civic, defending landuse=religious, and hoping 
for a landuse=education.

I hope I made my question and my proposed solution clear enough. 

Javbw 
 

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-07-20 15:29 GMT+02:00 John Willis :

> So what about the rest - the landuse for the area - is my basic
> understanding remiss? Am I misinterpreting a basic tenent of OSM with my
> statement on area defined by landuse and buildings and amenities over it?
>
> Even if you disagree on landuse=religion, is that how the others work?
>
> Thanks for pointing out that about railway tag, but I'm interested in your
> comments the bigger question.
>





I am not sure if I completely understand your question. I think the "rest"
(or whole area) can evventually be split over different landuses, that is
not a problem itself. "landuse" is not suited (IMHO) to create a feature on
its own (besides that of the use of land). If there are other things you'd
like to tag you should use specific tags for them (or introduce new tags
where missing). For "religion" there is the key "religion", I do not
understand what information would be added with landuse=religious that
isn't already specified with "religion" the key and "denomination" its
subkey and other related keys, but I see potential conflicts with other
established landuse values like residential, forest, etc.

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[John Willis]

So what about the rest - the landuse for the area - is my basic understanding 
remiss? Am I misinterpreting a basic tenent of OSM with my statement on area 
defined by landuse and buildings and amenities over it? 

Even if you disagree on landuse=religion, is that how the others work?

Thanks for pointing out that about railway tag, but I'm interested in your 
comments the bigger question. 

Javbw

Sent from Japan 

> On Jul 19, 2014, at 9:47 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 19/lug/2014 um 02:08 schrieb johnw :
>> 
>> Landuse=transportation is disused too for stations, etc).
> 
> 
> there is already landuse=railway
> 
> 
> 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] Religious landuse?

[fly]

Hey

So far landuse is not misused that much than other tags. Yes, we have
discussions how far landuse reaches and we, for sure, miss some like
highway or a defined solution for mixed types.

landuse=religion does not describe any landuse. It is about the owner of
the property or maybe even only the operator.

Within the property you might have quite a lot of different landuses
like residential, vineyard, farmland, meadow and more.

Well, I think we should use a different tag or even only religion=* as
main tag.

My two cent fly

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 19/lug/2014 um 02:08 schrieb johnw :
> 
> Landuse=transportation is disused too for stations, etc).


there is already landuse=railway


cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 19/lug/2014 um 02:08 schrieb johnw :
> 
> So when tagging a business, a mall, or a apartment building, you map the area 
> it covers using landuse, add parking lots and other amenities on top, and put 
> the buildings in and tag the buildings with their use (offices, house, 
> apartment, etc) and name the landuse with the place name, and the building 
> with the building or business name (City Office Park=> Bob's cleaners / City 
> Mall => McDonalds / City Apartments => building 4 ).


IMHO we should distinguish between the building and the user of the building. 
When there is a object tagged with building=* the name tag refers to the 
building. When there are other tags like amenity or shop etc it becomes 
ambiguous and IMHO it would mostly be better to add another object for these, 
like a node or a multipolygon relation, where the name and other tags for this 
feature go.

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[johnw]

On Jul 17, 2014, at 5:46 PM, Pieren  wrote:

> I'm surprised about this discussion. Think that
> amenity=place_of_worship has to be treated like amenity=school. Nobody
> is asking to create a landuse=school because it is rendered properly
> on the main osm style

Besides this discussion of Landuse=religion, This comment help me refine my 
thinking about landuses. Perhaps I need to explain my thinking.

I DO want landuse=education, Just like landuse=civic, and landuse=religious. 

Why? 

Because when I first started tagging in OSM (which wasn't too long ago), I 
mapped retail, commercial, & residential in my town. I skipped schools and the 
harder stuff because it wasn't clear to me, as a new tagger, how to handle 
these.

So when tagging a business, a mall, or a apartment building, you map the area 
it covers using landuse, add parking lots and other amenities on top, and put 
the buildings in and tag the buildings with their use (offices, house, 
apartment, etc) and name the landuse with the place name, and the building with 
the building or business name (City Office Park=> Bob's cleaners / City Mall => 
McDonalds / City Apartments => building 4 ).

This format is really easy for a new beginner to understand.  


   ___parking___   ##building###

landuse

[side view of a common mapping of a single business]


You then tag amenities and other things that the the landuse or the building or 
outline other areas (parking, gardens, grass, pools, etc) that the principal 
landuse has. A pool is lesiure item at the Apartment complex, Parking is an 
amenity for the business, etc. 

But becuase OSM's tagging system has grown organically, The landuse category 
for this style of tagging is incomplete for some categories - Religion, Civic, 
and Education, and (I think?) Landuse=transportation is disused too for 
stations, etc).


I want fo fill out these landuses and make OSM more consistent. long time 
taggers may be comfortable with the inconsistency in the system, but we need to 
make the tagging more logical, and less of a chore to determine what tagging 
theory is applied to what category - currently they are all jumbled up. The 
wiki shouldn't need a chart to describe how to tag a school - it should be like 
a business. but it does, because amenity=school on the area is an unexpected 
hack because landuse=education was never made. 
Same with City office complexes and temples/churches.

If our goal in the tagging mailing list is to improve the OSM tagging scheme, 
adding needed tags and simplifying the scheme should be high priorities - it 
would allow us to have more newbie taggers (like myself?) be able to tag the 
basic things around them without having to live inside the wiki to learn the 
arbitrary rules and customs for that particular item - when 99% of everything 
in a city is just a landuse and a building.

And from the perspective of a motivated newbie, it sure as hell seems 
needlessly arbitrary - especially with the amenity tag masquerading as a 
landuse.


Javbw



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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 18/lug/2014 um 23:07 schrieb Brad Neuhauser :
> 
> maybe other tags that apply, like amenity=monastery for a monastery


there is also "community" proposed by FrViPofm 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:community
the proposed values are a bit atypical for osm, as they are all abbreviated, 
but it is an extensive list of Christian communities.

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Brad Neuhauser]

Cool, thanks for the examples!  To clarify, I didn't say that method was
invalid, I was saying that it didn't look very common to me. From what you
sent, it appears I may be wrong about that. :)

So, it looks like there are two distinct approaches to using the
amenity=place_of_worship tag: 1) limiting it to the place of worship itself
usually a building, and 2) using it for the entire grounds a la
amenity=school. To circle back to the point of this thread, the question is
if someone follows method 1, what is the recommended way to tag the
grounds? There is usage and wiki documentation of landuse=religious. Martin
also mentioned putting religion=* and operator=* (and maybe other tags that
apply, like amenity=monastery for a monastery) on a way around the area.


On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar 
wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Brad Neuhauser 
> wrote:
>
>> Besides, I don't think we need to be quite literal with
>>> "place_of_worship" only being tagged for the actual specific object where
>>> one does worshiping.
>>>
>>
>> I hear what you're saying, but with a tag that's used 600K times (on 226K
>> ways), we have to look at actual usage for part of our guidance. *Totally*
>> unscientific, but I used overpass turbo to zoom in on multiple areas around
>> the world and look at ways that are tagged amenity=place_of_worship, and
>> the vast majority appeared to be building outlines. Using it for the
>> grounds seems like an outlier. (if someone else wants to do more robust
>> research, I'd be happy to see it! :)  So, while using place of worship for
>> the grounds may be correct in certain case, in the majority of cases, the
>> common usage seems to leave a question about how to tag the grounds.
>>
>
> Places where the grounds are tagged with amenity=place_of_worship and not
> just the main building:
>
> Tokyo, Japan: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gi
> Manila, Philippines: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gj
> Singapore: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gk
> Beijing, China: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gl
> Bangalore, India: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gm
> Bangkok, Thailand: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gn
>
> I don't know which areas around the world you have looked at but from my
> point of view, tagging the grounds is clearly not an outlier method of
> tagging but is completely valid.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Religious landuse?

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Brad Neuhauser 
wrote:

> Besides, I don't think we need to be quite literal with "place_of_worship"
>> only being tagged for the actual specific object where one does worshiping.
>>
>
> I hear what you're saying, but with a tag that's used 600K times (on 226K
> ways), we have to look at actual usage for part of our guidance. *Totally*
> unscientific, but I used overpass turbo to zoom in on multiple areas around
> the world and look at ways that are tagged amenity=place_of_worship, and
> the vast majority appeared to be building outlines. Using it for the
> grounds seems like an outlier. (if someone else wants to do more robust
> research, I'd be happy to see it! :)  So, while using place of worship for
> the grounds may be correct in certain case, in the majority of cases, the
> common usage seems to leave a question about how to tag the grounds.
>

Places where the grounds are tagged with amenity=place_of_worship and not
just the main building:

Tokyo, Japan: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gi
Manila, Philippines: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gj
Singapore: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gk
Beijing, China: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gl
Bangalore, India: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gm
Bangkok, Thailand: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gn

I don't know which areas around the world you have looked at but from my
point of view, tagging the grounds is clearly not an outlier method of
tagging but is completely valid.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Brad Neuhauser]

>
> Besides, I don't think we need to be quite literal with "place_of_worship"
> only being tagged for the actual specific object where one does worshiping.
>

I hear what you're saying, but with a tag that's used 600K times (on 226K
ways), we have to look at actual usage for part of our guidance. *Totally*
unscientific, but I used overpass turbo to zoom in on multiple areas around
the world and look at ways that are tagged amenity=place_of_worship, and
the vast majority appeared to be building outlines. Using it for the
grounds seems like an outlier. (if someone else wants to do more robust
research, I'd be happy to see it! :)  So, while using place of worship for
the grounds may be correct in certain case, in the majority of cases, the
common usage seems to leave a question about how to tag the grounds.


On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar 
wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure "church grounds" is a place of worship. People don't usually
>> worship God in an organized manner besides the church.
>>
>
> There are actually a lot of churches where I am where the Catholic 14
> Stations of the Cross are spread throughout the church grounds and these
> are spots where churchgoers pray the Way of the Cross.
>
> Besides, I don't think we need to be quite literal with "place_of_worship"
> only being tagged for the actual specific object where one does worshiping.
>
> ___
> 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] Religious landuse?

[Brad Neuhauser]

As we all know, rendering is different from tagging. If people want to
change how place_of_worship is rendered, that's a different issue for a
different venue. This is about how to tag the data.


On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar 
wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Pieren  wrote:
>
>> I'm surprised about this discussion. Think that
>> amenity=place_of_worship has to be treated like amenity=school. Nobody
>> is asking to create a landuse=school because it is rendered properly
>> on the main osm style. The problem is that amenity=place_of_worship is
>> always rendered as a building even when it could be a bigger area
>> (like for schools).
>>
>
> +1. I've always ignored the fact that the main rendering draws
> amenity=place_of_worship in a really dark color and I tag the whole church
> grounds as amenity=place_of_worship and tag the church building itself with
> building=church. This is similar to how I tag the whole school grounds with
> amenity=school.
>
> I remember a discussion about a proposed tag landuse=institutional or
> similar for things like these earlier this year:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dinstitutional
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-March/016842.html
>
> ___
> 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] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 18/lug/2014 um 12:32 schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar :
> 
> Besides, I don't think we need to be quite literal with "place_of_worship" 
> only being tagged for the actual specific object where one does worshiping.


To what else would you like to extend it?

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 18/lug/2014 um 12:50 schrieb John Sturdy :
> 
> Some monasteries have quite extensive grounds which are "within the
> monastic enclosure", that is, private to the monastic community and
> subject to the same rules as the monastery (e.g. if it's a silent
> order, that area of the grounds will be silent).


+1, this whole area should get amenity =monastery IMHO


cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[John Sturdy]

Some monasteries have quite extensive grounds which are "within the
monastic enclosure", that is, private to the monastic community and
subject to the same rules as the monastery (e.g. if it's a silent
order, that area of the grounds will be silent).

__John

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> I'm not sure "church grounds" is a place of worship. People don't usually
> worship God in an organized manner besides the church.
>

There are actually a lot of churches where I am where the Catholic 14
Stations of the Cross are spread throughout the church grounds and these
are spots where churchgoers pray the Way of the Cross.

Besides, I don't think we need to be quite literal with "place_of_worship"
only being tagged for the actual specific object where one does worshiping.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Janko Mihelić]

2014-07-18 11:15 GMT+02:00 Eugene Alvin Villar :

>
> +1. I've always ignored the fact that the main rendering draws
> amenity=place_of_worship in a really dark color and I tag the whole church
> grounds as amenity=place_of_worship and tag the church building itself with
> building=church. This is similar to how I tag the whole school grounds with
> amenity=school.
>

I'm not sure "church grounds" is a place of worship. People don't usually
worship God in an organized manner besides the church.

I know of some churches in Croatia where there is an altar and pews out in
the open [1]. I think these kinds of setups are the only cases where you
map amenity=place_of_worship not as a building (at least in christian
religion).

[1]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Marija_Bistrica_Crkva_na_otvorenom_2011-09-11.jpg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Pieren  wrote:

> I'm surprised about this discussion. Think that
> amenity=place_of_worship has to be treated like amenity=school. Nobody
> is asking to create a landuse=school because it is rendered properly
> on the main osm style. The problem is that amenity=place_of_worship is
> always rendered as a building even when it could be a bigger area
> (like for schools).
>

+1. I've always ignored the fact that the main rendering draws
amenity=place_of_worship in a really dark color and I tag the whole church
grounds as amenity=place_of_worship and tag the church building itself with
building=church. This is similar to how I tag the whole school grounds with
amenity=school.

I remember a discussion about a proposed tag landuse=institutional or
similar for things like these earlier this year:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dinstitutional
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-March/016842.html
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 17/lug/2014 um 17:16 schrieb Brad Neuhauser :
> 
> put an operator and/or religion tag on other mapped features in the area,


+1, 
not necessarily "on other features", you could try to find a tag that describes 
the area as a whole, but a religion and operator tag will express the basic 
detail.

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Brad Neuhauser]

Schools are an interesting case for comparison, as on the surface they seem
similar.  But here's where I see the distinction: many times the entire
school grounds is used for school activities (including things like
building, playground, sports pitch, parking, etc). But with place of
worship, it is usually just one area of a grounds (often a building) that
is used for worship. Yet, other activities related to that religious
community may take place in the grounds, and that's what we're trying to
figure out here. Maybe it's the phrasing of "place of worship" that's part
of the issue--it's very specific!

Martin brought up amenity=monastery--it sounds like that might work for
John's case in Japan. But there are other cases. To take an extreme
example, some churches in the US have large "campuses". This one near
Memphis is bigger than some schools, and includes a gym and baseball
fields! http://tinyurl.com/ns6or8m  What to do here? I would say that it
doesn't make sense to tag the whole area as place of worship, that's
factually incorrect. So, if people are opposed to landuse=religious, what
would you recommend for a case like this? The only other option I can think
of might be to put an operator and/or religion tag on other mapped features
in the area, but that seems less than ideal.

Brad


On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
>
> > Am 17/lug/2014 um 10:46 schrieb Pieren :
> >
> > The problem is that amenity=place_of_worship is
> > always rendered as a building even when it could be a bigger area
> > (like for schools).
>
>
> In the Christian religion (which is where I happen to map, don't know
> about other religions) I use this tag on the sacred ground, which might
> extend to the churchyard, an oratory, or some outdoor space around the
> church, but often wouldn't comprise a kindergarten or some administration
> facility of the church, so I don't think place of worship can be used for
> this context. For monasteries I use amenity=monastery and put pow only on
> the churches and chapels...
>
> Agree that place of worship shouldn't render as a building
>
> 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] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 17/lug/2014 um 10:46 schrieb Pieren :
> 
> The problem is that amenity=place_of_worship is
> always rendered as a building even when it could be a bigger area
> (like for schools).


In the Christian religion (which is where I happen to map, don't know about 
other religions) I use this tag on the sacred ground, which might extend to the 
churchyard, an oratory, or some outdoor space around the church, but often 
wouldn't comprise a kindergarten or some administration facility of the church, 
so I don't think place of worship can be used for this context. For monasteries 
I use amenity=monastery and put pow only on the churches and chapels...

Agree that place of worship shouldn't render as a building

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 17/lug/2014 um 11:08 schrieb johnw :
> 
> Describing other grounds - education, retail, industrial, etc all fall under 
> landuse.


I don't see it like that. landuse should be the landuse, for facilities you 
should use a distinct tag, e.g. man_made=works office=* shop=* or 
amenity=school etc. There can/will be some overlap but the name should go in 
the facility/feature

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[johnw]

> Still not convinced about landuse=religious (could be owner_type=religious).


On Jul 17, 2014, at 5:32 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> 
> 
>> Am 16/lug/2014 um 23:43 schrieb John Willis :
>> 
>> It is all a single place, operated by the monks and priests that live or 
>> work there. For the past 1100 years (it was founded around 900ad). It all 
>> has a single outer wall or barrier, and is considered the "Naritasan temple 
>> grounds"
> 
> 
> so maybe the tag for the whole facility could be temple_grounds (not sure for 
> the key, could be amenity for instance)? Additionally religion=* and 
> denomination tags, name etc.
> 
Describing other grounds - education, retail, industrial, etc all fall under 
landuse. I don't see why religious institutions would be excepted, as the 
purpose of the land and the facilities on it (overall) are religious, certainly 
not commercial or retail. 


> Still not convinced about landuse=religious (could be owner_type=religious).
> 

I understand, but it is really hard for me to see how religious institutions 
fit under the existing big Retail/Industrial/Residential/Commercial landuses, 
similar with my lng thread a bout landuse=civic.

I would tag a curch grounds as landuse religious, and the building with the 
place_of_worship tag, just like landuse=retail 
and building=shop 

I really like the idea of  generic landuse tags with specific building tags, 
and I've been trying to get landuses to filling the 2 or 3 missing major 
landuse types [some feel] are missing.  Landuse=religion fills one of those. 

We have enough tags to fill out the detail on the rest. 

Maybe it's more about missing consistency than anything.

Javbw



> 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] Religious landuse?

[johnw]

>  Would you tag all those (e.g. the preschool) with landuse=industrial if the 
> site was owned and operated by Mercedes Benz?


I might, if it is a single building in the center of a sheet metal stamping 
plant, or a room in the office building onsite. Just as we tag shops at an 
airport terminal. It isn't landuse=retail if it's a burger Joint jammed in next 
to gate 27. It's an amenity of the larger facility. But the Retail mall 
adjacent to the terminal (or the train station) is it's own landuse, IMHO.  

Conversely, if it is a school across the street from the plant, or where access 
to the land use is even somewhat independent from the Assembly factory or it 
isn't an amenity of the larger office complex, I would tag it as it's own 
landuse, and then with operator.


Thanks for reminding me about the operator tag, I keep forgetting it. 

Javbw

On Jul 17, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> 
> 
>> Am 17/lug/2014 um 09:35 schrieb johnw :
>> 
>> My Parent's presbyterian Church in San Diego has a very large chapel 
>> building, a religious pre-school & kindergarten, a meeting hall, the church 
>> office building, and a playground for the preschool.  There is one sign and 
>> one driveway on the street for the whole thing. 
> 
> 
> I'd definitely add religion=christian and denomination=* to all those 
> features, as well as operator=*
> 
> Would you tag all those (e.g. the preschool) with landuse=industrial if the 
> site was owned and operated by Mercedes Benz?
> 
> 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] Religious landuse?

[Pieren]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:

I'm surprised about this discussion. Think that
amenity=place_of_worship has to be treated like amenity=school. Nobody
is asking to create a landuse=school because it is rendered properly
on the main osm style. The problem is that amenity=place_of_worship is
always rendered as a building even when it could be a bigger area
(like for schools).

Pieren

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 16/lug/2014 um 23:43 schrieb John Willis :
> 
> It is all a single place, operated by the monks and priests that live or work 
> there. For the past 1100 years (it was founded around 900ad). It all has a 
> single outer wall or barrier, and is considered the "Naritasan temple grounds"


so maybe the tag for the whole facility could be temple_grounds (not sure for 
the key, could be amenity for instance)? Additionally religion=* and 
denomination tags, name etc.

Still not convinced about landuse=religious (could be owner_type=religious).

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 17/lug/2014 um 09:35 schrieb johnw :
> 
> My Parent's presbyterian Church in San Diego has a very large chapel 
> building, a religious pre-school & kindergarten, a meeting hall, the church 
> office building, and a playground for the preschool.  There is one sign and 
> one driveway on the street for the whole thing. 


I'd definitely add religion=christian and denomination=* to all those features, 
as well as operator=*

Would you tag all those (e.g. the preschool) with landuse=industrial if the 
site was owned and operated by Mercedes Benz?

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[johnw]

On Jul 17, 2014, at 7:20 AM, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> landuse=japanese_temple_grounds, or landuse=buddhist_temple_grounds, or maybe 
> something nicer.



My Parent's presbyterian Church in San Diego has a very large chapel building, 
a religious pre-school & kindergarten, a meeting hall, the church office 
building, and a playground for the preschool.  There is one sign and one 
driveway on the street for the whole thing. 

Covering the church offices, the meeting hall and the Pre-school with land-use 
"place of worship" is wrong. It is land-use religious (they are not a company), 
and the chapel itself is a place of worship, The offices are tagged a offices, 
the school tagged as a kindergarten, playground, etc, all encompassed by the 
single land use named Trinity Presbyterian Church". 

Just as we separate strain stations and platform - the station is there to 
provide access and service patrons of the platform, but it isn't where you get 
on the train. 

The church's facilities are "part of the church", and serve the churches needs, 
but it isn't where you do your praying and listen to the sermon. 



> We don't have to mash all cultures together in one-size-fits-all tags.

Specific tags are less-used tags. I notice we don't have natural=cherry_tree, 
or natural=Supertall_Redwood_Tree,  just natural=tree. Goes on all the trees. 

Generic tags with additional info are more flexible.

There are a ton of Jehovah's witness buildings around the world, but there is 
no "JW_Kingdom_hall_grounds tag either.

This is why we use generic tags with more specific sub-tags - to avoid this 
kind of messy religion-based taggery.  

narita: 
name=naritasan landuse=religion  religion=buddhist;shinto  see? easy as pie. 

BTW Buddhist is all over asia, not Just Japan, so there would be buddhist 
temples from Japan to Afghanistan - I bet a fw of them are mixed-use 
outside of Japan . Shinto is their homegrown religion, and because of political 
power struggles a long time ago, Buddhist and shinto buildings often are forced 
to share the same community grounds - more mixing!! Do I make a specific 
landuse for each case ( B, S, B+S) or do I use the elegant semicolon with the 
religion tag? I think the answer is clear.  Then tag the buildings with 
amenity=place_of_worship and religon=__ to match. 

Tag the building or the area as the amenity if that is all it is, but mixed use 
areas need a more flexible landuse, without betraying the purpose (it's not 
commercial, residential, industrial, or retail). Same reason I want a 
landuse=civic tag. 

There are plenty of religious places that are more than a church and a parking 
lot, in both the western and eastern hemispheres.




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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Nelson A. de Oliveira]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
> I wouldn't give this tag a general name like landuse=religious. People from
> all over will use this like they see fit, and the tag will soon lose
> meaning. If Japanese temples usually have grounds around them that have
> religious connotations, then I would call it something like
> landuse=japanese_temple_grounds, or landuse=buddhist_temple_grounds, or
> maybe something nicer.

I don't agree.
It's purposely generic, like quarry, industrial, commercial, orchard
and everything else.

If you need to specify the religion then use the religion/denomitation keys.

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Andy Mabbett]

On Jul 16, 2014 1:42 PM, "John Willis"  wrote:

> Landuse=religious gives us a generic tag, like landuse retail or
commercial, without having to be so specific.

I'm going to tag my house and garden landuse=atheism

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[Janko Mihelić]

I wouldn't give this tag a general name like landuse=religious. People from
all over will use this like they see fit, and the tag will soon lose
meaning. If Japanese temples usually have grounds around them that have
religious connotations, then I would call it something like
landuse=japanese_temple_grounds, or landuse=buddhist_temple_grounds, or
maybe something nicer.

We don't have to mash all cultures together in one-size-fits-all tags.

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[John Willis]

Sure - the land is all owned by the temple. The schools are run by the temple. 
The private residence is the monks residence. He lives next to and operates the 
temple.  In Japan, "next to" usually means attached or less than 1m separating 
the buildings. As many functions are jammed together. Many "suburban" temples 
operate in this manner. Same with the gardens. They are operated as an 
attraction of the temple, but they are not a temple. The nicer temples have 
some kind of grounds around them that could be considered gardens, and some 
even charge access to them.

The "grounds" of Narita-San temple near the main airport is the size of a small 
college, there are 4 or 5 main Buddhist and Shinto buildings, cemeteries, 
Shinto gates, a religious trinket souvenir shop, large event grounds, and a 
massive forest with walking paths, 2 lakes, a few flower gardens, and grassy 
fields, with monuments, shinto shrines, and other small things scattered 
throughout the grounds. It is all a single place, operated by the monks and 
priests that live or work there. For the past 1100 years (it was founded around 
900ad). It all has a single outer wall or barrier, and is considered the 
"Naritasan temple grounds" 

My boss is a monk, and his residence is adjacent to the temple and part of the 
temple land and temple grounds ( meaning, it is inside the walls of the temple, 
accessible only by going to the temple) but the average temple visitor would 
never actually go in there. 

Just like the kitchens in Disneyland - they are part of Disneyland, but a 
patron would never expect to enter - but they are undeniably part of 
"Disneyland" 

Javbw 
Sent from Japan

> On Jul 17, 2014, at 1:05 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 16/lug/2014 um 14:42 schrieb John Willis :
>> 
>> Next to my house is another temple with a giant cemetery, temple building, 
>> bell tower, private residence, and a public garden. The temple certainly is 
>> a place of worship, the garden is not.
> 
> 
> Could you expand the idea that the private residence or the public garden 
> should be landuse = religious ? Is this based on ownership by a religious 
> institution, or are there more connections?
> 
> 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] Religious landuse?

[Brad Neuhauser]

I don't know what John's example is, but it would make sense to me to
include the private residence if it is a place where people who are part of
the religious community live, for example a parsonage or a dormitory of a
monastery.  Regarding gardens, they may have a religious purpose
(meditation and reflection, or include a labyrinth) but not be a place of
worship.


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> > Am 16/lug/2014 um 14:42 schrieb John Willis :
> >
> > Next to my house is another temple with a giant cemetery, temple
> building, bell tower, private residence, and a public garden. The temple
> certainly is a place of worship, the garden is not.
>
>
> Could you expand the idea that the private residence or the public garden
> should be landuse = religious ? Is this based on ownership by a religious
> institution, or are there more connections?
>
> 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] Religious landuse?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 16/lug/2014 um 14:42 schrieb John Willis :
> 
> Next to my house is another temple with a giant cemetery, temple building, 
> bell tower, private residence, and a public garden. The temple certainly is a 
> place of worship, the garden is not.


Could you expand the idea that the private residence or the public garden 
should be landuse = religious ? Is this based on ownership by a religious 
institution, or are there more connections?

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

[John Willis]

Mixed use facilities run by a single organization, for example, a temple with a 
private home, a cemetery, a public recycling center, and a pre-school might 
have the outer area defined by the landuse=religious tag, and the individual 
buildings/areas tagged as needed. 

Really, that facility is 1km from my house. Next to my house is another temple 
with a giant cemetery, temple building, bell tower, private residence, and a 
public garden. The temple certainly is a place of worship, the garden is not. 
The cemetery is maintained by the people there, but one would visit the 
cemetery or garden without going to the temple, or vice versa. They all have 
different names - I believe even the bell has a name

Landuse=religious gives us a generic tag, like landuse retail or commercial, 
without having to be so specific.

Javbw

Sent from Japan

> On Jul 16, 2014, at 8:52 PM, John Packer  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I saw on the wiki there was some changes on pages related to religious 
> landuse.
> It seems there is this tag that was documented only recently (but has around 
> 1500 uses, mostly on Europe), and is called landuse=religious
> 
> In my opinion, it seems this tag conflicts with amenity=place_of_worship in a 
> large ammount of cases, if not all.
> I think it could be used for places that are not strictly for worship, but 
> are used in religious practices (for example a religious school that is 
> associated with a particular church, but not on the same grounds).
> Does this seems correct?
> 
> Cheers,
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Religious landuse?

[Pieren]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:52 PM, John Packer  wrote:
> Does this seems correct?

It's something else and is related to a "rendering" issue. The
place_of_worship area is rendered as a black area on the map and is
usually placed on the building polygon. If you want to draw to whole
place which can be more than the building itself, then you have this
"rendering" issue because you see no difference on the map.
Instead of creating a new tag, this could be fixed in the rendering
style sheet where the color and transparency could be different if the
polygon place_of_worship is combined or not with a "building=*" tag.

Pieren

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

[Tagging] Religious landuse?

[John Packer]

Hi,

I saw on the wiki there was some changes on pages related to religious
landuse.
It seems there is this tag that was documented only recently (but has
around 1500 uses, mostly on Europe), and is called landuse=religious

In my opinion, it seems this tag conflicts with amenity=place_of_worship in
a large ammount of cases, if not all.
I think it could be used for places that are not strictly for worship, but
are used in religious practices (for example a religious school that is
associated with a particular church, but not on the same grounds).
Does this seems correct?

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