[Tagging] how to tag a terrace?
danstowell+osm at gmail.com
Fri Dec 13 20:44:11 UTC 2013
2013/12/13 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:
> 2013/12/13 Dan S <danstowell+osm at gmail.com>
>> "highway=pedestrian area, with [...] surface=paving_stones" seems to
>> tag it pretty well to me.
> those tags aren't on the relation that represents the whole object though.
>> > IMHO building would fit, what are the alternatives? man_made and
>> > historic,
>> > but historic would exclude similar constructions of recent make.
>> > Man_made is
>> > usually for more technical stuff, and in the past we used building even
>> > for
>> > ships (that don't move any more, with a restaurant inside).
>> building doesn't make sense to me. It is "built" in the sense of being
>> "man-made" or "architectural", but then so is a bridge, a fountain,
> yes, as we don't have a tag for bridges either (all we use is an attribute
> to a railway or highway that it is on a bridge, we don't actually map the
> bridge itself, besides the bridge relation maybe), a building=bridge is fine
> for me as well.
>> Perhaps you could say what _aspect_ of the terrace you consider is not
>> reflected in the tagging that Fabrizio describes?
> Actually it was himself who described that the terrace consists of several
> A highway=pedestrian area, with black and white tiles marked as
> surface=paving_stones (that's the one with the terrace's balustrades)
> An acquarium 
> Grass areas
> A gazebo construction
>> The photo you
>> originally linked to shows a large and decorative pedestrian area,
>> which is not difficult to map.
> it is not just a pedestrian area, it is also retaining walls, ceiling, a
> pavillon, stairs, foundations, ...
>> The multipolygon collects together the
>> geographic features that people presumably think of when they think of
>> the name Terrazza Mascagni. So, if those things don't satisfy you,
>> there must be some additional _quality_ that you have in mind?
> I think that there is clearly an "object" which is called "terrazza xy"
> which consists of several parts, which is a built structure, and which is
> more than just a pedestrian area. I think that who created the multipolygon
> relation thought the same (hence he created the relation and attached the
> name and wikipedia link to it).
I know you think it's clear, but it isn't clear to me what the "edges"
of this "object" might be, which is why I asked you if you could say
some more about this. If I understand you right, maybe one of the
closest parallels in OSM tagging would be leisure=park? I'm not
suggesting you should use this tag, just that maybe the object you
have in mind has a similar ontological status. For example it's weird
to me to think that "grass areas" or other buildings (mentioned above)
would be considered a sub-part of a building=* object. But, for
example, it's quite common for leisure=park objects to have grass
areas and buildings inside.
More information about the Tagging