[Tagging] landuse=single family houses/apartments

Eric Jarvies eric at csl.com.mx
Wed Sep 8 05:52:03 BST 2010


On Sep 7, 2010, at 10:17 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:

> The problem with mixing ownership terms with building structure terms is that you can't generally distinguish ownership by appearance, short of there being signs stating the fact, or making inquiries.  I have heard of cases where some units in a multi-household structure would be owned by the residents, while other units would be available for lease, or even rented out month-by-month.
Ok, makes sense.  So it's best to classify them as housing:condominium ?  And what about the 'shanty' value?  In my state, or more specifically, in my municipality, we have ~100,000 titled(legally) properties, and about ~120,000 divided properties(squatters, ejido, etc.).  Of these, about 30,000 have 'shanty' type dwellings.  Most Mexicans do not finance their properties/homes/home construction... which means they spend years building them, using their wages/earnings from each paycheck, advancing little by little.  New lower class neighborhoods that spring-up as a result of economy stimulation(driven in my area by tourism), usually takes about 4-5 years for those (mostly) immigrants to make the move from their shanty dwelling, to constructing a permanent cement/rebar dwelling, but this usually takes up to five years before they've finished(the obra negra/structural work including floors, walls, and roof).  So should these 'shanty' homes be tagged as a 'house' just the same?  And if so, then what is the current common convention for classifying construction types?

Eric Jarvies


> 
> -------Original Email-------
> Subject :Re: [Tagging] landuse=single family houses/apartments
> From  :mailto:eric at csl.com.mx
> Date  :Tue Sep 07 23:03:41 America/Chicago 2010
> 
> 
> housing:house/apartment/condominium/mobile_home/public_housing/shanty/fractional/timeshare
> 
> here in mexico, many properties have 'shanty' structures that are permanent, albeit cheap/easily dismantled, they are permanent dwellings none the less.
> 
> fractionals are usually in ,multi-level/unit structures, but also come in the form of free standing/singular structures, and timeshare are usually within a resort/hotel, and are not commonly referred to as being condominiums per say, but rather, as either timeshares or fractionals, and often times as suites or villas(here in mexico).  mexico has a high percentage of these type of dwellings... how do you think the best way to tag them is?
> 
> fractional:1/16, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 3/4(ownership percentage)
> timeshare:1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10(weeks)
> 
> Eric Jarvies
> 
> On Sep 7, 2010, at 9:28 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> 
>> Other arrangements are common as well, such as duplexes (buildings holding two households); the same property owner owns both halves of the building, and the land underneath both; he or she may live in one half and rent out the other half, or may rent out both halves.
>> 
>> -------Original Email-------
>> Subject :Re: [Tagging] landuse=single family houses/apartments
>> From  :mailto:Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.Net
>> Date  :Tue Sep 07 22:07:45 America/Chicago 2010
>> 
>> 
>> At 2010-09-07 17:51, =?UTF-8?Q?M=E2=88=A1rtin_Koppenhoefer?= wrote:
>>> 2010/9/8 Alan Mintz <Alan_Mintz+OSM at earthlink.net>:
>>>> At 2010-09-04 09:12, Erik Johansson wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I've taken a slightly different approach. I use landuse=residential to
>>>> outline the entire related area. I then add that way to a relation with
>>>> role=boundary. I add the various buildings, roads leading to and within,
>>>> swimming pools, tennis courts, etc. to the relation. On the relation
>>> itself,
>>>> I tag:
>>>> 
>>>> type=site
>>>> + site=housing
>>>> + housing={house|apartment|condominium|mobile_home|public_housing}
>>> 
>>> 
>>> that's fine, but adding simply the tag
>>> housing={house|apartment|condominium|mobile_home|public_housing}
>>> to the landuse=residential polygon would have a similar effect.
>> 
>> True - I wanted to be complete about it, though, so I described how I was
>> doing it, since at the time I started (a year or two ago), there was no
>> coverage of the subject in the wiki at all.
>> 
>> 
>>>> : house is a single-family detached dwelling where the owner owns the land
>>>> and the buildings on it
>>>> : apartment is a multi-family dwelling where the tenants pay rent to the
>>>> owner of the buildings and land
>>>> : condominium is where the tenant "owns" the building (or part of one, as
>>>> they are often attached like apartments), but not the land, and pays
>>>> proportional rent and maintenance fees for the land and common areas.
>>>> : mobile_home is similar to condominium, but using pre-fabricated housing
>>>> instead of permanent structures
>>>> : public_housing is generally apartments (though occasionally houses) that
>>>> are owned by a government agency and occupied by low-income/disabled
>>>> tenants.
>>> 
>>> Your system is a mixture of typology and ownership.
>> 
>> Intentionally. Sometimes, I don't believe it's necessary to completely
>> dissect all of the possible features from every different angle -
>> particularly when many of those features may not be discernable from a
>> quick survey in person or by records. AFAIK, in the US, these are the types
>> of housing available when one goes to look for a place to live - this is
>> the way that they are commonly categorized by people both in the real
>> estate business and not.
>> 
>> 
>>> The owner situation might be quite dependent on cultur (even locally,
>>> i.e. differing from one city to another). In Berlin for instance there
>>> are traditionally many people in rented apartments, but you will also
>>> quite often find mixed situations: owners and leasers door to door in
>>> the same building.
>> 
>> This can happen in condominiums here, too. You can sometimes get approval
>> to rent out your condo. I don't think it's likely to be something you can
>> see from a survey, though. It's still going to look like a condo, and be
>> one in most respects. I wasn't attempting to be completely rigorous in the
>> descriptions - just to try to describe what the thing is for those that do
>> not know.
>> 
>> 
>>> There are also people that rent a detached house.
>> 
>> Sure. It's still a house, though. It's still owned by the person that owns
>> the land, and that is not the government. Perhaps my descriptions should be
>> broadened to exclude who lives there.
>> 
>> 
>>> ...
>>> Actually this is a really wide field, there are endless singular
>>> projects and exceptions, and there are huge cultural differences:...
>> 
>> Again, I think this is one of those times when we need to focus more on
>> usability and common knowledge. I believe I have described the terminology
>> that people commonly know and use. It's worked well for me in the 315 cases
>> that I've mapped. I don't think it precludes creation of an extended
>> tagging scheme if someone really wants to import or research the other
>> information.
>> 
>> --
>> Alan Mintz <Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.net>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> 
>> -- 
>> John F. Eldredge -- john at jfeldredge.com
>> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> John F. Eldredge -- john at jfeldredge.com
> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 




More information about the Tagging mailing list