[Tagging] leisure=events

Antônio Marcos toni.oliv at gmail.com
Wed Mar 12 19:21:23 UTC 2014


I am still struggling a bit about the key that should be used with the
"events" value. Should I keep "leisure", as it is now, or change it to
landuse? What are your opinions on this, please? Thanks for the help :).


On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:06 PM, johnw <johnw at mac.com> wrote:

> >
> > 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
>
>  ありがとう (Arigatou)
> John
>
> PS: sorry to hijack leisure=events
>
>
> > cheers,
> > Martin
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140312/1f294b29/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list