[Tagging] adjacent buildings

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Should buildings adjacent to each other be mapped:
>
> 1) individually, with shared boundaries
> 2) individually, with an arbitrarily small gap between boundaries
> 3) as one contiguous area?
>
> An example of a row of adjacent buildings:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-27.664894&lon=153.031072&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF. The
> roofs of the buildings are distinguishable from each other using aerial
> imagery, but the row of buildings may well appear as a single building from
> the ground.
>
> I tend to think 1) or 3) is the correct solution. I hesitate to use 3) due
> to [1], which says: "For areas adjacent to ways, the consensus is to
> generally leave a small gap between the area and the way instead of sharing
> the boundary". What about *areas adjacent to areas*?
>
> [1]
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Tagging_Areas
>

Are these buildings conceptually separate (e.g., different building
management or construction dates)? If yes, map as separate areas sharing
boundaries.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20100208/cb9f56b7/attachment.html>