[Tagging] adjacent buildings

Stephen Hope slhope at gmail.com
Mon Feb 8 03:24:05 GMT 2010

On 8 February 2010 09:10, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

The recommended gap between areas and ways is to represent a gap which
is actually there in real life - eg the park along side a road does
not finish at the centerline of the road, which is where the way
(road) is put. If you are marking adjacent buildings that share a
wall, then there is no actual gap to represent, so don't put one.  In
the same way, if you are marking a way and adjacent area that does not
have a gap (eg a park and a fence) then I wouldn't put a gap in there


More information about the Tagging mailing list