[Tagging] building=dormitory for monasteries?

[Brad Neuhauser]

why not just stick with building=residential then?

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:55 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2011/6/6 Brad Neuhauser <brad.neuhauser at gmail.com>:
> > I think it'd make sense to broaden the definition:
> > "Sleeping and living quarters provided by an institution for (large
> numbers
> > of) people associated with that institution.  For example, housing for
> > university students."
>
>
> in the case of a monastery it is not a quarter but a single building
> or part of a building. Also "large numbers" is not correct for many
> monasteries so I'd prefer to do without. Maybe for my case
> building=dormitorium would be better suited then the ambiguous
> "dormitory".
>
>
> > Not sure if the "large numbers of" helps or hurts, thus the parentheses.
>
>
> yes, I'd do without.
>
>
> > This broader definition could also be used for other similar things, like
> > military barracks.
>
>
> Why? This would introduce another imprecision, I'd either use a very
> generic "building=residential" or simply building=barracks for
> military barracks (they are indeed a proper architectural typology)
>
>
> > To take it a step further, something like "residence_hall" might be a
> better
> > term than "dormitory", but since it's got hundreds of uses already, just
> > changing the definition might be enough!
>
>
> +1, for the student's living space residence_hall would have been a
> better approach. Maybe we could still switch.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20110606/82f96adf/attachment.html>