> On May 15, 2015, at 8:02 PM, pmailkeey . <[email protected]> wrote: > > area IS landuse - it has to be (landuse=ocean !!!!) so we get > landuse=building even. >
Uhhh. What? This is a clear about-face on the landuse tag then. Everywhere is clearly not a landuse. Most of the earth is not altered nor designated nor segregated for a specific use. I can define an “area” of the world. But if there are no purposeful alterations for a task, designations of purpose, nor manmade buildings and amenities contained within…. then it is not a landuse. There is no landuse=glacier for a reason. Most of the ocean is “unused” by people. - they have not changed it to have a specific purpose, nor altered the water to do a specific job - and it’s pretty hard to have a landuse on an ocean (maybe oceanuse=fish_farm?) That would be a great "oceanuse" tag- there are plenty of floating, manmade, use-specific, designated-to-be fish farms around the world. They take up what… .01% of the ocean? the rest of the ocean has no man-altered, segregated, designated use (besides political ones) - but those are not “on the ground” in reality (like a fish farm or a oyster farm). I have no idea where you get the notion that area=landuse. land… *used* for a task. being a woods or a mountain or a lake is not the “job” or “designated purpose” of the area. It just is. hence the natural= tag. However, the land around a school building, usually fenced in, containing the facility and amenities that belong to the facility and designated as such (pitch, walkways, parking, etc) is clearly part of the school - but not a school building. The grounds and the building together make that “school." That land…. designated to be used by people… as a school… And which currently is altered from it’s natural state … to be a school ground… and has an area easily defined… as a school… should be “landuse=school” The drinking fountain, toilets, parking, gym, and other location level amenities are amenities of the school - and should continue to be tagged as amenities IMO - or should we have a tiiiiny little 30x30cm squares marked as landuse=drinking water? Landuse=shoe_rack? Landuse=fire_extingusher? It’s just as asinine as landuse=glacier. Which leads us to this statement: > So that raises the question as to whether 'landuse' adds any info value in > tags to the object being mapped. 'Building' clearly does. ?????????????????????????? when you map out only the buildings, you get a bunch of lego bricks spilled across the map. http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=18/36.38663/139.07087 <http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=18/36.38663/139.07087> Even without naming, and using only a single landuse across multiple areas, gives a much clearer idea of what is there. http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=18/36.43627/139.04950 <http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=18/36.43627/139.04950> Landuse ties them together int he way we already spatially identify them - this is a “school” this is an “apartment complex”… This is a “university” - The building+landuse for individual facilities gives you so much more together than just one by itself. The land and non-building amenities contained within the landuse are as important as the building. And… the name=* belongs to the landuse for all larger facilities. A big school (or mall or business complex) with many named buildings, pools, parking, seating, pitches, walkways, and wahatnot… is currently amenity=school + name=FooBar School. (I feel it should be landuse=school). same as landuse=retail name=FooBar OutDoor Mall. Or landuse=industrial name=FooBar Works. No single building is actually named the name of the facility - and often is named something else! - so the name=* for the facility doesn’t belong to it. Even tiny schools. My school has two buildings. Both have the same number of students. Which is named for the school? Neither. The ground has the name - out on the wall. http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=19/36.40723/139.33257 The name goes on the landuse, which includes the school’s parking, bike racks, hedges, walkways, water tanks, tress, and stairways. The wall around our perimeter is an an easily mapped and easily defined area boundary. Everything inside is landuse=school - as all of those amenities not only belong to the school, but support the operation of the school. Are the parking lots around a stadium not part of the stadium? Are the lawns, walkways, quads, and roadways not part of a business complex? What about a hospital with multiple buildings? http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.43591/139.25348 <http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.43591/139.25348> http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.40791/139.06405 <http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.40791/139.06405> http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.37886/139.08038 <http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.37886/139.08038> http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=16/36.3295/139.1009 <http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=16/36.3295/139.1009> http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.40860/139.03317 <http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.40860/139.03317> Here - there are no buildings (as there are none) - but just rice fields. Doesn’t this make the map much more understandable? All of these are man-altered places designated for a purpose. http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=19/36.43286/139.25779 This view that the land somehow lesser than the building, or the name of a large facility somehow belongs to a building (which one? who knows!) instead of the land the facility occupies is subjectively wrong, objectivity wrong, and easily disproved. Please reevaluate this seriously flawed opinion. Javbw
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
