On 19.04.20 20:33, Paul Allen wrote: > On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 at 19:29, Justin Tracey <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Another major exceptions where mapping as an internal node is > better, IME, are notable (historical) buildings that currently house > a business. More generally, if the tags of the building and business > would conflict (e.g., name), then it makes sense to keep them as > separate features. > > > If the building's name is still used as the house name, that's not a > problem. Otherwise old_name=* takes care of it.
Not in the general case (the name may continue to be in use, but not as part of the address). And there are other tags which may warrant a distinction between the building and the business, such as start_date. I would say the cleanest way to solve this, where necessary, is by creating separate features for the business and the building. Separate features don't have to mean a node for the business, it can mean two polygons. Of course, that's more work than either of the two popular shortcuts, so these still have their place. But polygons for businesses work no matter whether there's multiple tenants or just one, and it even works for indoor maps and other micromapping use cases. Tobias _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
