[Imports] Building outlines/footprints in Strzelce-Drezdenko county

andrzej zaborowski balrogg at gmail.com
Sat Dec 14 14:35:11 UTC 2013

On 14 December 2013 06:48, Jason Remillard <remillard.jason at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> From the file, here are the actual tags+values.

Note that other than building=* and building:type:pl=* we're talking
about less than 10 instances of each tag.

> building:fireproof=no
> building:fireproof=yes
> - Could you make a wiki page for this tag. It is used 90,000+ times.
> It seems to be just from already started import?

I've seen it used in other imports even dating back quite far.

> building:levels=1
> - OK
> building=fixme
> building=greenhouse
> building=ruin
> building=support
> building=yes
> - building=support, is not in the wiki. I don't have any idea what
> this means. Should this be roof?

It's mostly columns/poles supporting rooves.  I was thinking about
just skipping these objects since they're just 9 and I'm not sure
there's any use for them.

> description:pl=Budynek w ruinie
> description:pl=Cieplarnia, szklarnia
> Does "Cieplarnia, szklarnia" mean greenhouse? If yes, it is redundant
> with the building=greenhouse tag.

One is more generic, one more specific, but I can skip it in the 2
instances in the data.

> Does "Budynek w ruinie" mean ruins? If yes, it is redundant with the
> historic=ruins tag.

Ok, will skip.

> building:type:pl=Obrys budynku nieognioodpornego
> building:type:pl=Podpora (słup nośny) podcienia, wiaty, galerii
> building:type:pl=Przyziemie budynku nieognioodpornego
> building:type:pl=Przyziemie budynku ognioodpornego
> - should this be a note?
> - Does "Podpora (słup nośny) podcienia, wiaty, galerii" mean support?
> Is it redundant with the building=support/roof?

Again more specific, but I might skip these objects altogether.

> - Does "Przyziemie budynku ognioodpornego", fireproof? Is it redundant
> with building:fireproff=yes?

This also tells you if a given shape corresponds to the footprint or
the outline, I'm not sure what tag to use here but this is what has
been used in other imports.

> historic=ruins
> - OK
> source=Starostwo Powiatowe Strzelce Krajeńskie, raster
> source=Starostwo Powiatowe Strzelce Krajeńskie, survey
> - For imports, I think that we have a consensus that the source tag on
> objects is not needed and it is preferable to put it on the change set
> (just for imports).

If you don't add them, one of the local mappers is going to fix it for
you and add these tags in another edit ;)  I've seen this happen
before, people really expect to see the source tag in the editor if
it's not imagery.

So I question there's a consensus, I've seen arguments both ways even
on this list, and no actual imports without source= on objects in the
areas I map (vs. hundreds with the tag).


More information about the Imports mailing list