[Tagging] leisure=events

Yves yvecai at gmail.com
Wed Mar 12 21:07:11 UTC 2014

Leisure yes, landuse no.

On 12 mars 2014 20:21:23 UTC+01:00, "Antônio Marcos" <toni.oliv at gmail.com> wrote:
>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
>> 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
>> - at least the major buildings - to be treated above a standard
>> building. We recognize this with the amenity=townhall tag, and
>> created building=civic for a reason, and I feel there should be a
>> to denote the complex's land differently than the standard commercial
>> 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
>> with the landuse to go with townhall complexes and other admin
>> > It is also not clear from building=public what exactly this
>> (publicly owned and used by a public entity but not generally
>> publicly owned and open to the general public, privately owned but
>> operated and publicly accessible or even not, publicly owned and
>> used).
>>  If we start getting into building=public, then yes, there is a lot
>> 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
>> There is zero ambiguity with those. Maybe public is a bad word.  how
>> landuse=civic_admin?
>> > Generally I would not deduct any kind of ownership from the
>> 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
>> care about ownership either - mostly purpose. We separate schools
>> 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
>> that it is a government operated building.
>> I'm stating that there is a need for a landuse to show purpose for
>> heavily trafficked (known) civic buildings, just as we denote the
>> 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
>> similar
>> If we get into building=public, yea. But landuse=civic_admin seems
>> cut and dry. Which government ( village / town / city /
>> /state-province / region / federal) is is a question proprietor=
>> answer, but thats outside my discussion..
>> your suggestions and rebuttals have helped me think through my points
>> 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
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging at openstreetmap.org

Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140312/6254d5b4/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list