why not just stick with building=residential then? On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:55 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 2011/6/6 Brad Neuhauser <brad.neuhau...@gmail.com>: > > I think it'd make sense to broaden the definition: > > "Sleeping and living quarters provided by an institution for (large > numbers > > of) people associated with that institution. For example, housing for > > university students." > > > in the case of a monastery it is not a quarter but a single building > or part of a building. Also "large numbers" is not correct for many > monasteries so I'd prefer to do without. Maybe for my case > building=dormitorium would be better suited then the ambiguous > "dormitory". > > > > Not sure if the "large numbers of" helps or hurts, thus the parentheses. > > > yes, I'd do without. > > > > This broader definition could also be used for other similar things, like > > military barracks. > > > Why? This would introduce another imprecision, I'd either use a very > generic "building=residential" or simply building=barracks for > military barracks (they are indeed a proper architectural typology) > > > > To take it a step further, something like "residence_hall" might be a > better > > term than "dormitory", but since it's got hundreds of uses already, just > > changing the definition might be enough! > > > +1, for the student's living space residence_hall would have been a > better approach. Maybe we could still switch. > > cheers, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging