sent from a phone

> On 24. Jul 2018, at 09:36, Andrew Hain <> wrote:
> -1, there are several established tags for residential buildings in osm, e.g. 
> apartments,
> The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many of them.  We 
> have many tags for residential buildings
> and the result is that they're used inconsistently.

I am not seeing this, I can see many levels of detail, from “yes” via 
“residential” to “house”, “detached” and finally specific local types like 

It is not inconsistent (in a harmful way) to map with different level of 
detail/specificity, it is rather normal for a project with many contributors 
with different personal interests and fields of knowledge. It would be a 
problem if the inconsistency were industrial production buildings mapped as 
residential buildings (for example).

We should not remove the details, and nuances in this field, data consumers can 
deal with it, they will either treat all/most buildings the same (so it doesn’t 
matter to them anyway), or they could be specifically interested in generalized 
types they can now define as they need, or they are really interested in 
different dwelling typologies and their spatial distribution, and are happy 
with what they find in some places in osm.

What would IMHO make more sense are lists or better structured trees that show 
the system / hierarchy of the building values that are in use. The current flat 
list does not do a very good job in explaining the system nor for finding 
specific tags.

Tagging mailing list

Reply via email to