[Tagging] Religious landuse?

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Thu Jul 24 11:43:56 UTC 2014


2014-07-24 1:01 GMT+02:00 johnw <johnw at mac.com>:

> My Main question is on my understanding of the landuse+building tagging
> scheme.
>


I don't think there is a 1:1 relationship. "building" describes the type of
the building, while landuse the _use_ of the land.
Just yesterday evening I saw a mosque in the ground floor of a residential
building and I have seen a lot of "churches" in similar settings (which I
surely won't tag as building=church but they get an
amenity=place_of_worship).
In Berlin there is a museum inside a train station. IMHO this is still a
building=train_station (some parts, there are also extensions which are
building=storage/warehouse) even if it was used only from 1846-1884 as such.
see
http://www.smb.museum/en/museums-and-institutions/hamburger-bahnhof/home.html
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_Bahnhof
Another example would be a former public swimming pool which is now used as
a hackspace and eventspace:
http://www.stattbad.net/info/about/location
Or a church which now houses a library after having been desecrated.

these are some more extreme examples, but there are lots of others similar
cases. In some instances the mapper might decide that the transformation
the building underwent was so complete that the building type has changed
with the new use, but in others it might have been intentional to keep
structure and references to the former use.



> Because OSM tags have grown organically, there are rough systems for
> tagging objects, but there seems to be a clash of those systems when it
> comes to mapping area+building for common town building types.
>


yes, documentation of building types is poor, but this is also due to the
plurality of building types, there are lots of them.


>
>
> So (1), as a noob tagger, I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding
> something when it comes to mapping houses, businesses, industrial, etc -
> because I see landuse categories as a great way to map the usable land the
> building and it's **related** amenities.
>


something is generally related (spatially), when the areas overlap or one
is inside the other. You do not need tags for this.



>
> Since I am having trouble conveying this to you, I made a chart. it is a
> little big (120KB) to be on the mailing list, so I put it online.
> http://www.javbw.com/chart.png
>


I understand the intention of this chart, but I believe it is
oversimplistic and not useful for practical mapping. "house" is a quite
generic type, e.g. I'd go for something more specific like
"detached_house", "terraced_house" etc., or rather than building=industrial
there could be "production_hall", "warehouse" etc. (which are still quite
generic types and might merit subtagging, e.g. "packing_warehouse"). Inside
an industrial area you'll often find different typologies of industrial
buildings (and also commercial buildings and maybe even residential
buildings like a villa for the owner).


>
>
> I want to simplify tagging areas and buildings by having enough landuse
> tags to cover the major types
>


agreed, there are some missing values, mostly these are tags that would
cover areas that are already covered by a tag that is in a different
namespace than "landuse" (i.e. introducing those tags would merely
duplicate the existing information but might simplify evaluation of the
data/simple mid zoom renderings etc.).
E.g. we might want something for highly mixed spaces like you can find them
in the centre of traditional european cities (mixed between residential,
commercial, retail, education, culture, religion, health but typically not
industrial).



> Most beginning mappers aren't going to be in JOSM or Potlach, but use iD
> and the wiki (me currently)
>


Yes, tagging using presets bears generally the problem that you have to get
the meaning of a tag from one word and that you have to trust in the
interpretations that the makers of your editor / preset have applied.
Getting to know the basic keys and values and then search (and have a look
at taginfo) seems like a viable but timeconsuming solution, and I agree
that the wiki is not always easy to read (you'd have to look also on the
history for every article, due to wikifiddling) and I am sure there are
lots of inconsistencies no matter how hard we try...



> - and the arbitrariness of the tagging system documented in the wiki is
> very difficult to internalize, so you can map without constant reference to
> the wiki to find out what different tagging schema this area+building has
> vs all the rest (townhall vs a house vs a school are all completely
> different for no **necessary** reason).
>


they are not different at all:
building=detached_house
building=townhall
building=school

they are completely consistent ;-)

Now for the functions:
amenity=townhall
amenity=school
no tag for a private residence (not mapped due to privacy concerns)

also completely consistent.


 cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140724/72564b78/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list