[OSM-talk] Tagging climbing routes and scrambles
robin.paulson at gmail.com
Fri Apr 18 09:44:28 BST 2008
2008/4/18 Steve Hill <steve at nexusuk.org>:
> > I simply don't see namespaces as necessary. In this case I'd draw the
> > building and label it as a supermarket, then add a node for the post office.
> This seems a very messy solution to me.
> > The building is a supermarket, the post office is only part of it.
> That may not be the case - I know of several buildings which have several
> different shops in their own right within them, which should all have
> equal status. The post office may *not* just be part of the supermarket -
> it may be a completely separate thing within the building.
actually, it's neither.
the building is a building, that's it, regardless of what is inside it
it may well contain a supermarket, and/or a post office, but the two
the building is a physical item, with physical properties (length,
the supermarket and post office are conceptual items, with no physical
properties, but abstract properties instead (operator, opening hours,
so, we create a building as a polygon, and label it 'building=yes' or
'building=warehouse' (modern supermarkets are usually very like
warehouses in appearance)
then we put two nodes inside it, one 'shop=supermarket' and one
> Other examples include things like: buildings which have both toilets and
> showers within them, bus stops and post boxes that share the same pole,
amenity=showers (point) (both within building perimeter)
a lot of the disputes over tagging are caused by people confusing
physical items with conceptual ones; if we thought about separating
them before debating a tagging scheme, things would be a lot clearer
More information about the talk