[Tagging] tagging monasteries, convents and
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri Jun 3 11:38:56 BST 2011
Vincent, thank you for your valueable feedback.
2011/6/1 Vincent Pottier <vpottier at gmail.com>:
>>> looking at the available data and in the wiki I'm currently missing
>>> some tags for monasteries.
> They are different things to be tagged :
> * the building, that can be tagged in building=monastery ou building=convent
> . Those values are not very used...
yes, I'd also do this, but am also thinking about identifying smaller
typologic entities like cloisters and give them their own tag.
> * the community living there and I have started trying the tag community
> * the other building that should be tagged as other (farm, workshops,
> The church must be tagged as amenity=place_of_worship +
> religion=christian|buhddist... when open to every one (at least to belivers)
> I usualy use also the tag building=church for the architecture.
+1, but I'd tag places of worship that are not open to the public
> The other buildings should be tagged for what they are : hangar, hostellery,
I don't get "hangar", isn't this something like this:
> I'm not too much in favour of a landuse=religious, because the landuse, in
> itself is not a holy place or a sacred place,
well, in the case of a sanctuary it is, but I also am not fond of
using this landuse value because it would conflict with farmland, etc.
> I would prefer a relation=site + site=monastery for gathering all the stuff
> and defining the whole monastery. This relation could have a tag
> access=private to indicate the closure. Usualy, there is a wall, or a hedge
> around the closure.
> I don't know enough buhddist or other religious communities to improve the
> consistancy of a tag "community". It is why I still not have made a
> I'm interested in knowing your opinion about this way of tagging.
I think your proposed building values are OK for the actual buildings,
but there should be a suggested tagging for the institution and
details about it.
The community tag doesn't seem obvious to me, why don't we use
operator? Current community values are mostly abbreviated which makes
interpretation more difficult IMHO:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/community#values and with 127
occurences the tag is not really established.
There is this list in your userspace:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:FrViPofm/Community which I
suggest to change (official name could become operator and community
could become operator:ref)
More information about the Tagging