[Tagging] owner vs operator

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Sep 3 13:43:45 UTC 2013

2013/9/3 Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com>

> but :
> "Useful to describe that a certain map object "belongs" to a company
> or corporation in any way."
> This definition suggests that "operator" is also the owner...

maybe we should change this into "some way", so it doesn't (IMHO) imply

Looking at usage of the tags for owner I see

* owner (used 58k times, but seems to come from import(s), has often
capitalized values, the leading is UNKNOWN (19%), and other formalized
values like PUBLIC, CITY,
PRIVATE are following. There is also a remarkable amount of "X" (place 8).).

* ownership (used 42k times, the values meet our general formal
requirements (no CAPs, etc.), the values are generalized and documented
(municipal, state, private, national, land_trust, private_nonprofit,
county), there is wiki docu:

* proprietor (used only 12 times, listing a name)

* belongto (used only 2 times)

my conclusion would be to keep "ownership" as a tag to denote the kind of
owner (private, public, ...) and to put into "owner" the actual name of the
owner (if this is suitable for privacy reasons, e.g. in the case of a
company, association or a public entity but not in the case of a person).
So owner instead of "CITY" would be e.g. "Gotham City". Also we could ask
the importer of the "crap" into the tag owner to clean up the mess.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130903/262419b2/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list