[Tagging] Status of building=stable

Martin Vonwald imagic.osm at gmail.com
Wed Oct 17 09:08:27 GMT 2012

You're right. I'll change the proposal in the following way:
a) building=stable, no building:use: looks like a stable, used as a stable
b) building=stable, building:use=<not stable>: looks like a stable,
but used for something different
c) building=<whatever>, building:use=stable: looks like <whatever>,
but is used as stable

I assume, that the majority of who used building=stable in the past
meant "it is used as a stable".



2012/10/15 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:
> I would vote for defacto approved ;-) , if the definition wasn't in
> disaccordance with the general definition building=<building-type>
> The proposal you quote is about a facility _used_ as a stable, not for
> a building built as a stable. This doesn't invalidate the objects
> tagged building=stable but it makes it disputable whether the mapper
> was following the proposal or simply mapping a stable. In most cases
> it will make no difference. Problems only arise for
> buildings/structures that were not built as stables but are used as
> such, and for buildings built as stables and retaining their structure
> but being used for different purposes now.
> cheers,
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

More information about the Tagging mailing list