[Tagging] Religious landuse?

[John Willis]

Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 26, 2014, at 1:38 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 2014-07-25 3:33 GMT+02:00 johnw <johnw at mac.com>:
>> But for a majority of the buildings I'm mapping here in rural/"suburban" Japan, there isn't as much mixed use or repurposed use as you would imagine - most homes are purpose-built 2 story, single family detached homes with a wall around them.  It is very easy to designate their use.
> 
> 
> yes, this is simple. You draw one, tag it and copy paste to bigger configurations and then cp all over the place ;-)

There's copy-paste in iD now?! ^_^

For that reason alone, I tried potlatch, and looked into JOSM. 

>  
>> ..., a cemetery, a buddhist temple, a 7-11, and ~10 detached homes. this is all within around 300m of my house in "rural" Japan. but every one of those has an easily defined border associated with the buildings - and an easily understood landuse tag to go with them. 
>> 500m away is an elementary school, with no landuse value. it depends on amenity=school for **some unknown reason** to define it's landuse. Until recently, the temple also had no landuse value to define the area the temple grounds occupy, but now landuse=religious exists.
> 
> 
> Maybe those landuse values haven't been proposed so far because the main mapnik map didn't "need" them, the style painted these amenity areas already ;-)
> e.g. amenity=school/university implies landuse=education. In case of religious things you will also have a "religion" attribute. You could of course add additional landuse tags, but how would that bring a benefit?

Well, it would bring a little standardization to the landuse, and hopefully make mapping areas for the buildings more accessible. People are mad-tracing huge swaths of buildings in Tokyo now, and they are not mapping any non-building areas whatsoever, besides a crude outline of a park or two.  

Anything that can standardize the mapping of areas and make the gagging process more transparent is a good thing. 

Choose the landuse, choose the building & sub-tag, and map the amenities in the the landuse. For every single building, no matter the type. 

> The civic landuse sounds more interesting, because the list of possible building types and users can be quite long and there is no religion-like common attribute (or is it?).

I think in the short term, landuse=civic does give the greatest benefit - because paired with a civic= sub tag, it can help define a myriad of governmentish buildings and services that are beyond the scope of city halls and community centers.  In my experience, people look at governmental facilities much different that a standard office - just like a school or hospital - and marking the landuse would be the first step in having their area render differently, like we color the other major landuses. 


But I wanted to explain my thinking about why I wanted the other land uses- Make some documented consistency. 

As OSM's tagging scheme becomes more complex, consistency will be the biggest battle, as to encourage noobs (like me) and (maybe?) make the dataset and rendering better too. 

Thanks for the input.  

And, um... How do I go about submitting landuse= civic? I guess I'll hit the wiki again.

Javbw

> Cheers,
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140726/520ba635/attachment-0001.html>