[Tagging] Landuse=civic_admin

Satoshi IIDA nyampire at gmail.com
Fri Mar 14 01:35:33 UTC 2014

+1 to define "landuse=civic_admin".

It is very helpful to represent the outline when using type=site relation.
Especially for more than 2 amenities shares 1 landuse.

e.g. in the case of 2 schools (junior high & high school) is in 1 landuse,
in Japan.
I think they must be represent as type=site relation,
but currently the outline of the amenity is "amenity=school".
In fact, the number of amenities is 2.
Which is the "name" for outline "school"? Junior high? High school?

I think "landuse=civic_admin" could resolve this situation.
(site relation of node "amenity=school" & outline "landuse=civic_admin")


2014-03-14 8:54 GMT+09:00 johnw <johnw at mac.com>:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Satoshi IIDA
mail: nyampire at gmail.com
twitter: @nyampire
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140314/852972cc/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list