+1
This corroborates what I said on the changeset & how I mapped it.
Dave F.
On 14/03/2016 10:43, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
The one pub that I plotted, I added when I was doing a couple of
nearby schools and noticed that it was missing. I used exactly the
same principle as for the schools - an outer “amenity=pub” polygon
and an inner “building=pub” for the actual building.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389684953
Personally, I think that this is fine. The fact that the pub icon sits
in the garden is hardly the end of the world, and the garden _is_ part
of the pub after all. And I bet if you turned up at the location you’d
be able to spot where the pub was :)
My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that there is way too much
inconsistency in the way that things get mapped in OSM which makes it
difficult to understand the data. Country pubs, in particular, will
often have car parks & gardens as well as the physical building, and
using an enclosing polygon is surely the right way to make sure that
they are all kept together - and using a style of data that then
compares directly to other amenities like schools, hospitals, parks …
Cheers
Stuart
On 14 Mar 2016, at 10:26, Jez Nicholson <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I normally plot and tag a pub building as an area. I've noticed a few
points appearing for existing pubs. They may be coming from the new
OSM online editing programs.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 at 22:48, Neil Matthews <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
It's not my preferred style -- I prefer to draw the building and
tag that. I'd expect to put the name and address on the building too!
If I tag a large area, then there's a high likelihood that it'll
adversely affect routing. Conversely tagging large areas makes
the map look more complete.
However, if I can't rely on a rendering to help me locate a
public house (emphasis on the house :-) accurately on a map,
especially at the end of a long day mapping, then that doesn't
rely help. And since I use mapnik renderings and OSMAnd+ it's
important that they work well -- especially as that way I find
other non-obvious issues.
Schools are somewhat different in that they aren't generally open
to the public -- it's probably more important to map the
entrances on the perimeter -- as more and more schools are
fencing kids in and public out.
But maybe we should use bar to mean where you actually get
served? And pub for the whole area.
Cheers,
Neil
On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote:
Earlier today browsing Pascal Neis summary of changesets I
noticed a comment about reverting a duplicate pub node, and
glanced at the changeset
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37749403>.
The pub had indeed been added again (and subsequently removed).
However what caught my attention was that the amenity=pub tag
had been applied to the entire area of the pub grounds (car
park, buildings etc.). A quick query on IRC and Andy
(SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this way, however rarely with as
much detail as this particular one. The general alternative is
to map pubs as areas on the building of the pub.
The obvious advantages of mapping the entire area of the pub
property are largely to do with the immediate association of car
parks, beer gardens, children's playgrounds with the pub and
thus ready interpretation of things like access tags and
resolution as to which car park belongs to the pub. This
approach is clearly less cumbersome than using a relation, such
as associatedCarpark (invented I believe by Gregory Williams in
Kent).
The disadvantages, at least to my mind, are:
* Non-intuitive. Certainly I have never thought of mapping
pubs this way, although I can see the point. I doubt that a
newcomer to OSM would find this the straightforwardly
obvious approach.
* Pubs are licensed premises. The premises licensed usually
relate to the building.
* Where do we place tags associated with the pub premises
which may apply also to other parts of the pub property (an
obvious one would be opening_hours).
* Peculiar rendering. In this case a pub icon in a car park.
Even if we fully accept "not tagging for the renderer",
let's consider how we can tell renderers to improve icon
placement. Andy suggested on IRC a label node, but this
implies a relation: do we want to replace a simple node &/or
area tag with a node, an area & a relation? And then ask the
Carto-CSS team to deal with it? It seems to me that this
pushes the bar too high not just for inexperienced mappers
but also those of us who have been at it for a while. In the
meantime the CartoCSS rendering will look rather daft in
such cases.
* Consistency. In general pubs will get mapped initially as
nodes over the pub building, and attributes on a node easily
transfer to a building outline + (usually) building=pub. In
particular the node & area centroid will tend to be very
close. Thus the two different ways of mapping relate to each
other in a clear way.
This issue of course is more general than pubs. For instance we
map schools, colleges, universities and hospitals as areas and
place all the relevant tags on the area. Churches & other places
of worship, on the other hand, tend to have the amenity tag
placed on the building. (This makes sense as in many cases it is
the building which is the place of worship not the grounds).
Also, I certainly will map a supermarket as the building rather
than the whole area including car parks, petrol stations etc.
Obviously I prefer for supermarkets, places of worship and pubs
that the area mapped should be the building. However I can
equally see that there are certain issues which are otherwise
intractable where mapping the whole area offers some advantages.
One approach which would reflect my own mapping approach would
be to tag the complete area associated with the pub as
landuse=retail, with a tag such as retail=pub. This would
require no more additional OSM elements than used at the moment,
and would provide for the identification of associations with
car parks etc (and would work fine with multipolygons for pubs
where the car park is across the road or otherwise removed from
the pub.
This is an example of how as more stuff gets mapped different
styles evolve. Neither is specifically wrong or right, but it
would be nice if we could find a consistent style which
satisfies most needs.
Cheers,
Jerry
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
