sent from a phone
> Am 28.08.2015 um 02:37 schrieb John Willis <[email protected]>: > > We don't have "building=drop_forge" and building=paint_booth for industrial, > yet those are specialty building types - I agree those are particular building types (with particular requirements that lead to specific architectural solutions), but I don't agree that we don't want them tagged as such in OSM ;-) Building types are by wiki definition "any type you want", unless the value is the pointless "no", common data consumers will recognize all values as a building. No need to repeat the information from the landuse at the same information level on the building. I also acknowledge that current documentation for building types is rather poor. > > Defining a building by a particular amenity alone doesn't sound very good > when the building and function are so easily separated, and easily separated > from its parent landuse=* (a shop in a college, a gift shop at a temple, a > 7-11 in a hotel, etc) true for small shops, less so for huge buildings like supermarkets, department stores, production halls, storage warehouses, swimming pools, auditoriums, baseball stadions, high rise hotels, shopping malls, television towers, distribution centers, office towers, apartment houses, power plants, music halls, ... > If you really want to define retail buildings *as buildings* - then you need > to define them by their built types: single_shop, strip_mall, > shopping_Centre, shopping_centre_anchor yes (if they're individual buildings and not parts of a huge building, otherwise building:part) > , urban_mixed, rural_mixed too generic IMHO > , indoor_mall, mall_anchor, mall_outlier, outdoor_mall, warehouse, big-box, > etc. +1 > a market could be in any one of those depending on the region or country. +1 > > Imo, using building=to define shop type is the same as using building=to > define office company type. Can you tell by looking - without logo - if it is > the HQ of a bank, a law firm, a school district, or a bunch of disparate > tenants? I don't think so. yes, they're all office buildings you won't normally confuse them with a wastewater treatment plant or a farm though ;-) Of course there are subtypes (e.g. classification by kind of access and distribution of flow, or by height and proportion of height to width, by depth, presence of courtyards, shape in general etc.) > > I should be able to zoom out to where there are no icons - and see retail, > commercial, industrial, residential, civic-government, and specialty > (school, hospital, park, etc) buildings and *landuses* rendered differently > and instantly understand the layout of a city without a single label,shield, > or icon. I believe it would create too much confusion to highlight most building typologies in a general map rendering (but there might be exceptions, e.g. I would highlight important buildings like churches, castles and townhalls because they typically played an important role in the development of the settlement around here and provide easier understanding of the whole structure when you know about them). Maybe operas, museums and theatres as well, but less so, as they are more recent and hence had less impact. Train stations as well merit special treatment in my opinion, despite being more recent they typically had huge impact. And so on, depends obviously a lot on the area and context/culture (e.g. historic graineries and armories might be important too). > > And the basis for that is a complete set of landuse and complimentary > building tags. nah, landuse is a quite limited set of values, building types are endless... cheers Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
