[Tagging] Wiki edits, building tags on nodes versus areas

[André Pirard]

On 2014-06-05 17:03, Tod Fitch wrote :
> On Jun 5, 2014, at 3:03 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>
>> Am 04.06.2014 22:35, schrieb André Pirard:
>>
>> That's another new tagging system though. And even doing it like this
>> breaks down when there is more than one shop in the building.
>>
>> Therefore I believe that the only really clean solution is to actually
>> create one OSM element per feature: one for each shop, and one for the
>> building. This is also future proof - want to also tag the level the
>> shop is on, or even do complete indoor mapping? You can!
>>
>> Now, I don't think this should be enforced in situations where there is
>> only one shop in the building and where the building itself doesn't have
>> name, wikipedia or other tags different from the shop's. But for the
>> general case, I'm still in favour of using multiple elements.
(written yesterday)
I never said that and what I wrote had better been quoted for getting
ourselves understood.

In traditional parlance, many questions are ambiguous because for
example shop is used both for a building drawn on the map and an
activity within.
In order to completely get away with ambiguity, shop had better been a
banished word in my talk and replaced by sale taking place in all sorts
of building represented by map elements,

I agree  that, leaving the ambiguous words "shop" and "feature" alone, a
separately run sale must be within its own map element be it only a
single node representing a booth. That is, the sale attributes applies
to the booth object.
> How would you tag a shop within a shop?
Your question triggered my rewording above, thanks.
The "in traditional ... map elements" paragraph above applies.
Then your question becomes: "how do we tag sale that's taking place in a
building that is inside another building?".  And the answer becomes
obvious: it's only tagging a building (in the wide sense) inside a building.

It is the goal of my reasoning to make notions well defined and rational
in order to make the consequences more obvious and hence facilitate
understanding and mutual agreement.
Most logical systems start with precise definitions like node, way,
polygon and relation.
Tagging cannot escape that.
That cannot be improved without some changes and agreement.

> For example, here it is fairly common to have a mini-bank branch and/or coffee (StarBucks) shop within a supermarket? I don't know how the ownership details work, but the amenities are branded differently than the supermarket and the employees staffing them are uniformed differently than the supermarket employees.
A supermarket="sale activity within a building" does not prevent another
building being inside where another activity takes place. You forgot
toilets where the activity is not really sale even if one may have to
pay ;-)  Why not add a node that we dare called toilets because it
represents a kind of building that cannot be another kind like a kennel
at the same time (1). Then we can safely add to that node attribute tags
related to toilets without risking the confusion resulting from trying
to add such tags to the supermarket building.

Cheers,

André.





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140606/3375eb96/attachment.html>