dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Mar 10 14:51:51 UTC 2014
2014-03-10 12:48 GMT+01:00 johnw <johnw at mac.com>:
> otherwise we would have no need for building=civic / public.
IMHO we do indeed have no need for building=public / civic. Both can be
considered vague building types, but on a very generic level, I'd encourage
everyone to use more specific building tags. It is also not clear from
building=public what exactly this indicates (publicly owned and used by a
public entity but not generally accessible, publicly owned and open to the
general public, privately owned but publicly operated and publicly
accessible or even not, publicly owned and privately used). Generally I
would not deduct any kind of ownership from the building type, and neither
from the landuse, and not even from access-tags ;-)
If we were to tag ownership (problematic, might have privacy implications,
could be hard to verify with publicly accessible sources) a dedicated new
tag should be used, e.g. proprietor, owner, property_of or similar.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging