[Tagging] Shop vs amenity

John Willis johnw at mac.com
Sat Aug 29 23:27:45 UTC 2015


> On Aug 30, 2015, at 4:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> suggests a proper entity. Landuse can be seen as a propery, I wouldn't use it to constitute objects on their  own.

A mall sits on one named landuse=retail.
A factory sits on landuse=industrial.
A company HQ sits on a single landuse=commercial. And an apartment complex sits on a single landuse=residential. A "gated community" in San Diego is 20-30 houses made by the same builder with an access gate out front (and a single sign for the name of the place). It is not an actual community. 

Landuse is awesome. 

Why do some values of landuse, in your description get treated so differently when the urban/suburban ones are all the same?

Every building in a city should be on a landuse. The exceptions are the old amenities (school, hospital, which I would love to change to a landuse). 

Why do we keep coming back to the rejection of this simple and consistent idea? Why do people insist on making it difficult, counter-intuitive, and strange? 

Why should the pattern for mapping industrial complexes be any different for residential? Civic/government? Schools? Hospitals? None of the buildings in any of those examples, when grouped together into a named complex, have the name of the complex - they are all named differently. There is no building named "factory" when they *all together* make a factory. 

A factory, an apartment complex, and a school are usually *a lot bigger* than their buildings. Their landuse area is well defined.  The landuse is named. Their amenities belong to the landuse, not a building on the landuse. 

This is true of every other category of urban and suburban landuses and the older "grounds" amenities. 

   Building=* ref=*  building=* ref=*
|---------Landuse=* name=*---------|

That should be consistent and unchanging, no matter the building. 

Hence my desire for landuse=civic. 

More information about the Tagging mailing list