johnw at mac.com
Tue Mar 11 00:06:33 UTC 2014
> IMHO we do indeed have no need for building=public / civic.
if I were back in San Deigo, I might agree with that, but having come to Japan, there is a definite and immediately recognizable distinction of city buildings, *and* they are used quite heavily.
There is a known difference and a corresponding need for these facilities - at least the major buildings - to be treated above a standard office building. We recognize this with the amenity=townhall tag, and someone created building=civic for a reason, and I feel there should be a landuse to denote the complex's land differently than the standard commercial use building.
> Both can be considered vague building types, but on a very generic level, I'd encourage everyone to use more specific building tags.
generically, yea they are both office buildings. I'm concerned primarily with the landuse to go with townhall complexes and other admin buildings.
> 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).
If we start getting into building=public, then yes, there is a lot of ambiguity, which is why I took your suggestion and narrowed it to landuse=public_admin, i'll drop the others from this point forward.
For the vast majority of the *administration* buildings, either in California or Japan (and I imagine elsewhere =] ), there is absolutely no ambiguity. Everyone knows the building types I listed :
>> public_admin would the city halls, courthouses, state, and capital buildings, embassies, etc. This is the most important one, IMO.
(along with US "federal buildings") are definitely government operated. There is zero ambiguity with those. Maybe public is a bad word. how about landuse=civic_admin?
> Generally I would not deduct any kind of ownership from the building type, and neither from the landuse, and not even from access-tags ;-)
You're right - those tags don't really show ownership. And I don't really care about ownership either - mostly purpose. We separate schools because we recognize that is a useful landuse to differentiate - like all the myriad of landuses - public or private, a park is a park, and a school is a school. But for this particular one (cuvic_admin), it is pretty obvious that it is a government operated building.
I'm stating that there is a need for a landuse to show purpose for these heavily trafficked (known) civic buildings, just as we denote the others. They are more than an office building, just as a university is more than an office building complex with meeting rooms.
The above is the main point of what I'm trying to say.
> 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
If we get into building=public, yea. But landuse=civic_admin seems pretty cut and dry. Which government ( village / town / city / county-prefecture /state-province / region / federal) is is a question proprietor= could answer, but thats outside my discussion..
your suggestions and rebuttals have helped me think through my points and clarify my opinions. Thanks =D
PS: sorry to hijack leisure=events
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging