On 2016-03-17 08:49, Simon Poole wrote: > - use of one building outline for a complex of potentially more than one > building that are adjacent and not easily divided in to individual > component structures (I had to laugh at the suggested "can stand on its > own" criteria, having seen other building collapse when one in a row has > been demolished).
It can conjour up some amusing images, I agree, and maybe not entirely perfect. But what I wrote is based on the fact that this was one of the heuristic criteria for the Dutch government in an exercise over the past few years of giving every "building" an identifier, with an N:M relation with ownership and habitation (i.e. one building can contain (parts of) multiple occupancy units, and one occupancy unit can be spread over multiple buildings or parts thereof. Other criteria included the ability for a human to stand. A typical summary of the definition of a "building" for these purposes is "de kleinste bij de totstandkoming functioneel en bouwkundig-constructief zelfstandige eenheid die direct en duurzaam met de aarde is verbonden [1] en betreedbaar en afsluitbaar is" is a basic description, which translates to "the smallest unit which is constructionally independent, built directly upon the ground, enterable (by a human) and lockable" Is a bus shelter or a bridge a "building"? If a house is substantially extended to create a new independent living area, at what point does that become a new Building? Not that I am suggesting we have such strict rules... but some well thought-out guidelines would help to assure a bit of consistency. --colin Links: ------ [1] https://www.amsterdam.nl/stelselpedia/woordenboek/#Duurzaamverbonden
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
