On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Roy Wallace <[email protected]> wrote:
> Should buildings adjacent to each other be mapped: > > 1) individually, with shared boundaries > 2) individually, with an arbitrarily small gap between boundaries > 3) as one contiguous area? > > An example of a row of adjacent buildings: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-27.664894&lon=153.031072&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF. > The > roofs of the buildings are distinguishable from each other using aerial > imagery, but the row of buildings may well appear as a single building from > the ground. > > I tend to think 1) or 3) is the correct solution. I hesitate to use 3) due > to [1], which says: "For areas adjacent to ways, the consensus is to > generally leave a small gap between the area and the way instead of sharing > the boundary". What about *areas adjacent to areas*? > > [1] > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Tagging_Areas > Are these buildings conceptually separate (e.g., different building management or construction dates)? If yes, map as separate areas sharing boundaries.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
