<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Hi all,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I notice the same trend happening with nearly all discussions. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Instead of being able to consistently look at and discuss these key
features as a world-wide general term the discussion tends to become mired in
precise local situations.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The discussion was originally about the key ‘building’ which is a general
term used to indicate a structure of some kind (this would be the broadest
definition which would be acceptable in nearly every part of the world).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The value would be what defines the more precise description of that
structure (e.g. Single household, multiple use, shed, garage, etc.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>With armchair mapping it may not always be possible to identify the extent
of single buildings (as in an informal slum area, or a complex high rise city
centre where the imagery is oblique).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It is preferable in this situation to allow the indication that there are
structures there that need more detailed sorting and am in agreement with Blake
about the possibility of adding a tag building=multiple which should flag up in
any validation process as needing attention (as highway=road does). I also agree
that this should be only used as a last resort and sparingly.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>At the moment I see mappers leaving blank spaces because they cannot
identify individual buildings, either because of the complexity of the area or
because the imagery is not sharp enough. This approach will allow them to
indicate that there are structures there but need more attention.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=dieterdreist@gmail.com
href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com">Martin Koppenhoefer</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 17, 2016 8:55 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=tagging@openstreetmap.org
href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tag discussion, strategy and related
tools</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple
building</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV class=gmail_extra>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>2016-03-17 1:04 GMT+01:00 Clifford Snow <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:clifford@snowandsnow.us"
target=_blank>clifford@snowandsnow.us</A>></SPAN>:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">I
used to work in the telecom field. We often did lateral additions to the
building. Many times different entrances would have different
addresses.</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR>yes, multiple addresses on the same
building do occur, at least in some regions. I am aware of Germany and Italy
where it both happens (in Italy it is the standard). Assigning addresses to a
building can make sense in some cases (areas), but it definitely doesn't
(always) in others.<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra>Cheers,<BR></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra>Martin<BR></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>Tagging mailing
list<BR>Tagging@openstreetmap.org<BR>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>