Chris,
I fully agree with these points. I've done a reasonable amount of mapping in Sittingbourne, but my mapping tends to be centred around highways rather than landuse or buildings. I have updated some similar tagging to what you describe on schools in the past such that the buildings are tagged with building=school and the extent of their grounds is tagged with amenity=school, rather than the previous building=yes + amenity=school on the same buildings. I believe that lots of the buildings have been derived from automated OS_OpenData_StreetView tracing by OSM user SemanticTourist. That probably explains why they appear to cover multiple actual buildings in reality and that they shape doesn't always correspond terribly well to the crisper buildings you can see in the Bing imagery there. You may have noticed that the building coverage actually spreads beyond just Sittingbourne to quite a sizable chunk of Swale borough centred on the town. Thanks for the work you've done here so far. As far as I'm concerned as a local mapper feel free to update the problematic tagging as you've described. I'll probably be able to help out eventually, but am currently concentrating on getting widespread maxspeed coverage in the eastern half of Kent and would prefer to get this essentially complete before starting another large mapping challenge. Gregory From: Chris Baines [mailto:cbain...@gmail.com] Sent: 29 November 2012 20:59 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-GB] Sittingbourne I was looking at the OSM Inspector, and happened to notice a large red bit over Sittingbourne [1], on closer inspection, there seems to loads of good data for Sittingbourne in OSM. However in my opinion, its not presented (tagged, ...) in the best way. The three issues that I have seen are: - landuse=residential building=yes tags on the buildings - in most cases this should just be building=house - building footprints are too big and often cover many houses - just need spiting up, one house, one building way - addr data separate from the building outlines - merge data per [3] So, if anyone is having problems finding places to map... Also, if anyone disagrees with the above assessment, please shout. I have already done a bit of improvement here [2]. 1: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses <http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses&lon=0.73599&lat=51.34400&zoo m=14&overlays=buildings,buildings_with_addresses,postal_code,nodes_with_addr esses_defined,nodes_with_addresses_interpolated,no_addr_street,street_not_fo und,interpolation,interpolation_errors,connection_lines,nearest_points,neare st_roads> &lon=0.73599&lat=51.34400&zoom=14&overlays=buildings,buildings_with_addresse s,postal_code,nodes_with_addresses_defined,nodes_with_addresses_interpolated ,no_addr_street,street_not_found,interpolation,interpolation_errors,connecti on_lines,nearest_points,nearest_roads 2: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.335704 <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.335704&lon=0.73662&zoom=18&layers=M> &lon=0.73662&zoom=18&layers=M 3: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
