Am Fr., 13. Sept. 2019 um 21:38 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both *real and
> current*"
>
>
> building!=yes = 65 221 930
>
this is actually an encouraging number, given that it is around 20% while
not so
Am Fr., 13. Sept. 2019 um 15:20 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> On 11/09/2019 14:50, Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> > I said that if it was a church and looks like a church then tag the
> building as a church even if it now functions as something else.
>
> Buildings don't
13 Sep 2019, 21:37 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
> On 13/09/2019 16:14, Wolfgang Zenker wrote:
>
>
>>
>> That would be kind of redundant, wouldn't it? We already use other tagsfor
>> the current function of a building,
>>
> I'm repeating much of my of my previous comment, but no, the schema
* Dave F via Tagging [190913 21:37]:
> On 13/09/2019 16:14, Wolfgang Zenker wrote:
>> That would be kind of redundant, wouldn't it? We already use other tags
>> for the current function of a building,
> I'm repeating much of my of my previous comment, but no, the schema
> which hijacked
On 13/09/2019 16:14, Wolfgang Zenker wrote:
That would be kind of redundant, wouldn't it? We already use other tags
for the current function of a building,
I'm repeating much of my of my previous comment, but no, the schema
which hijacked building=* to represent the original historical
* Joseph Eisenberg [190913 16:45]:
> I certainly recall reading about this in the wiki, but I agree that in
> common use, the building=* tag appears to be used mostly for the
> current function, rather than specifying a certain form.
That would be kind of redundant, wouldn't it? We already use
I certainly recall reading about this in the wiki, but I agree that in
common use, the building=* tag appears to be used mostly for the
current function, rather than specifying a certain form.
The most common values of building= are:
0) yes (non-specific)
1) =house - both a structural form and a
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 9:20 AM Dave F via Tagging
wrote:
> On 11/09/2019 14:50, Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> > I said that if it was a church and looks like a church then tag the
> > building as a church even if it now functions as something else.
>
> Buildings don't have a 'type'. There's no
On 11/09/2019 14:50, Paul Allen wrote:
I said that if it was a church and looks like a church then tag the building as
a church even if it now functions as something else.
Buildings don't have a 'type'. There's no 'class', no standard
architectural style or size. A quick image search proves
By the way, there are currently 5 objects with the tagging on the same
object.
{
"type": "way",
"id": 59218539,
"tags": {
"addr:housenumber": "8",
"addr:street": "Pier Place",
"building": "church",
"leisure": "sports_centre",
"name": "Alien Rock",
"note": "former St
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 14:38, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Am So., 8. Sept. 2019 um 15:13 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen >:
>
>> Good idea. A better idea might be to add it to the description, since it
>> is information that
>> may be useful to non-mappers: data consumers may suppress notes but allow
Am So., 8. Sept. 2019 um 15:13 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :
> Good idea. A better idea might be to add it to the description, since it
> is information that
> may be useful to non-mappers: data consumers may suppress notes but allow
> the
> display of descriptions. It's useful to know that the art
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 at 10:09, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>
> In cases for usage apparently contradicting the building type it often
> helps the fellow mapper to
> tag a note that this school building was converted into a hostel, or this
> church building is used
> for climbing now.
>
Good idea. A
On 07.09.2019 11:00, Frederik Ramm wrote:
It is true that this is the canonical way of dealing with things,
however it would be interesting to check how mappers and editing tools
actually use this. We might well find that everyone is confused about this.
[...]
I think we cannot simply throw the
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 10:03, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> When we say "a cafe in an old church" we think of a building that has
> certain properties that make it discernible as a church even long after
> it ceased to be one; however, depending on location and denomination,
> you might also build a
sent from a phone
> On 7. Sep 2019, at 11:00, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> however, depending on location and denomination,
> you might also build a church using a blueprint for a plain community
> centre. In that case would it still be building=church becasue that was
> the original, intended
Hi,
On 07.09.2019 09:16, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> While in theory building=school could be reused as a hotel/pub (See
>> https://www.mcmenamins.com/kennedy-school) in that case the building
>> will be inside of a tourism=hotel polygon
Why would it - a standalone former school in a city that
On 07.09.2019 09:16, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
To me it seems redundant to tag leisure=sports_hall on buildings
inside of a leisure=sports_center, like tagging
"healthcare=hospital_ward" on each building inside of a large medical
center which is already mapped as amenity=hospital. The standard
18 matches
Mail list logo
