[Tagging] Landuse=civic_admin

johnw johnw at mac.com
Thu Mar 13 23:54:43 UTC 2014


I'm very interested to hear people's opinion on landuse=civic_admin

It would be a landuse for townhalls and other capital buildings, Federal Buildings, DMV, courthouses, and other basic civic administrative offices where it is clearly a government building.

This is to have a matching landuse to go with building=civic or amenity=townhall, and to differentiate basic townhall complexes from office building complexes in OSM.

Some countries do not require a visit to a federal building more than once every couple years (DMV, passport renewal), 
while some countries require visiting their local and regional government offices more than once a month for various paperwork duties and centralized government duties.

I was having a good discussion with martin about this, and he feels we don't need a landuse=civic or even a building=civic. I'd like to hear other opinions, 
as well as his reply to this narrowing of civic to civic_admin:

- Is it narrow enough in scope now, or does the idea of ownership still nix it for you?
- What would be the most minimal solution for differentiating the landuses for these buildings - make a straight landuse=townhall for townhalls only, or is the whole idea of differentiation bad to you?


Javbw


> Javbw
>> Martin

>> 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




More information about the Tagging mailing list