<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 16 May 2015 at 04:27, johnw <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:johnw@mac.com" target="_blank">johnw@mac.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span class=""><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On May 15, 2015, at 8:02 PM, pmailkeey . <<a href="mailto:pmailkeey@googlemail.com" target="_blank">pmailkeey@googlemail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:13px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">area IS landuse - it has to be (landuse=ocean !!!!) so we get landuse=building even. </div><br></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></span><div>Uhhh. <b>What?</b> This is a clear about-face on the landuse tag then. Everywhere is clearly not a landuse. Most of the earth is not altered nor designated nor segregated for a specific use.</div><div><br></div><div>I can define an “area” of the world. But if there are no purposeful alterations for a task, designations of purpose, nor manmade buildings and amenities contained within…. then it is not a landuse. There is no landuse=glacier for a reason. </div><div>Most of the ocean is “unused” by people. - they have not changed it to have a specific purpose, nor altered the water to do a specific job - and it’s pretty hard to have a landuse on an ocean (maybe oceanuse=fish_farm?) That would be a great "oceanuse" tag- there are plenty of floating, manmade, use-specific, designated-to-be fish farms around the world. </div><div><br></div><div>They take up what… .01% of the ocean? the rest of the ocean has no man-altered, segregated, designated use (besides political ones) - but those are not “on the ground” in reality (like a fish farm or a oyster farm).</div><div><br></div><div>I have no idea where you get the notion that area=landuse. land… *used* for a task. being a woods or a mountain or a lake is not the “job” or “designated purpose” of the area. It just is. hence the natural= tag. </div><div><br></div><div>However, the land around a school building, usually fenced in, <b>containing the facility and amenities that belong to the facility and designated as such</b> (pitch, walkways, parking, etc) is clearly part of the school - but not a school building. The grounds and the building together make that “school."</div><div><br></div><div>That <b>land</b>…. designated to be <b>use</b>d by people… as a school… And which currently is <b>altered from it’s natural state</b> … to be a school ground… and has an <b>area easily defined</b>… as a school… should be “<b>landuse</b>=school” </div><div><br></div><div>The drinking fountain, toilets, parking, gym, and other location level amenities are amenities of the school - and should continue to be tagged as amenities IMO -</div><div><br></div><div>or should we have a tiiiiny little 30x30cm squares marked as landuse=drinking water? Landuse=shoe_rack? Landuse=fire_extingusher? It’s just as asinine as landuse=glacier.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Which leads us to this statement:</div><span class=""><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>So that raises the question as to whether 'landuse' adds any info value in tags to the object being mapped. 'Building' clearly does.</div></blockquote><br></div></span><div>?????????????????????????? </div><div><br></div><div>when you map out only the buildings, you get a bunch of lego bricks spilled across the map. </div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=18/36.38663/139.07087" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=18/36.38663/139.07087</a></div><div><br></div><div>Even without naming, and using only a single landuse across multiple areas, gives a much clearer idea of what is there. </div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=18/36.43627/139.04950" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=18/36.43627/139.04950</a></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Landuse ties them together int he way we already spatially identify them - this is a “school” this is an “apartment complex”… This is a “university” - </div><div><br></div><div>The building+landuse for individual facilities gives you so much more together than just one by itself. </div><div><br></div><div>The land and non-building amenities contained within the landuse are as important as the building. </div><div><br></div><div>And… the name=* belongs to the landuse for all larger facilities. A big school (or mall or business complex) with many named buildings, pools, parking, seating, pitches, walkways, and wahatnot…</div><div><br></div><div>is currently amenity=school + name=FooBar School. (I feel it should be landuse=school). same as landuse=retail name=FooBar OutDoor Mall. Or landuse=industrial name=FooBar Works.</div><div><br></div><div>No single building is actually named the name of the facility - and often is named something else! - so the name=* for the facility doesn’t belong to it. </div><div><br></div><div>Even tiny schools. My school has two buildings. Both have the same number of students. Which is named for the school? Neither. </div><div><br></div><div>The ground has the name - out on the wall. <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=19/36.40723/139.33257" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=19/36.40723/139.33257</a></div><div><br></div><div>The name goes on the landuse, which includes the school’s parking, bike racks, hedges, walkways, water tanks, tress, and stairways. </div><div><br></div><div>The wall around our perimeter is an an easily mapped and easily defined area boundary. Everything inside is landuse=school - as all of those amenities not only belong to the school, but support the operation of the school. </div><div><br></div><div>Are the parking lots around a stadium not part of the stadium? Are the lawns, walkways, quads, and roadways not part of a business complex? What about a hospital with multiple buildings? </div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.43591/139.25348" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.43591/139.25348</a> </div><div><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.40791/139.06405" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.40791/139.06405</a> </div><div><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.37886/139.08038" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.37886/139.08038</a></div><div><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=16/36.3295/139.1009" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=16/36.3295/139.1009</a></div><div><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.40860/139.03317" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.40860/139.03317</a> </div><div><br></div><div>Here - there are no buildings (as there are none) - but just rice fields. Doesn’t this make the map much more understandable? All of these are man-altered places designated for a purpose.</div><div><br></div><div><font color="#4787ff"><u><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=19/36.43286/139.25779" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=19/36.43286/139.25779</a></u></font></div><div><br></div><div>This view that the land somehow lesser than the building, or the name of a large facility somehow belongs to a building (which one? who knows!) instead of the land the facility occupies is subjectively wrong, objectivity wrong, and easily disproved. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Please reevaluate this seriously flawed opinion. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Javbw</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>Thanks for the post, John.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I think the problem is the tagging method. Why does there have to be two parts to it ?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Landuse=schoolgrounds is the same as schoolgrounds. Natural=forest is the same as simply forest.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">How about:</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Forest=natural ?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">or forest=man_made ? [=plantation or somesuch term for a human-planted forest].</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">landuse=school is, to the map, the same as </div><div class="gmail_extra">area=school which is the same as</div><div class="gmail_extra">"school" or perhaps</div><div class="gmail_extra">school=primary</div><div class="gmail_extra">school=secondary</div><div class="gmail_extra">school=music</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">The big point is what does 'landuse' (or 'natural') tell us that's new information ? bridge=natural would be a case where natural is giving information as it is not expected bridges to be natural.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Can you find a sports pitch that's not landuse ? there's no need to have landuse=sports_pitch. And to prove my point, OSM doesn't ! we have instead leisure=sports_pitch - but it's still landuse but not tagged as such. So now, it seems OSM tags landuse on its own whims, is inconsistent; is confusing</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">landuse=golf_course</div><div class="gmail_extra">leisure+golf_course</div><div class="gmail_extra">man_made=golf_course</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Surely all three of these are 'obvious' when referring to a golf course ? If they're not the obvious - then tag differently: golf_course=electronic.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">OSM tagging is not logical. Does it need to be ? no, but it would help if it was.<br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Mike.</div><div><div>@<a href="https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">millomweb</a> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland</div><div>via <font color="#ff0000"><strong>the area's premier website - </strong></font></div><div><font color="#ff0000"><strong><br></strong></font></div><div><font color="#ff0000"><strong>currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets</strong></font></div></div><div><font color="#ff0000"><strong><br></strong></font></div><div><a href="https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail" target="_blank">T&Cs</a></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>