[Tagging] Shop vs amenity

[Warin]

On 30/08/2015 9:07 PM, johnw wrote:
>
>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 4:55 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
>> <dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> indeed the buildings are just buildings (eventually with own names, 
>> start dates and other attributes) , it's not them to put the name for 
>> the "whole" complex on. But IMHO it's neither a landuse object, it's 
>> an object with a different tag that defines it. We still need a tag 
>> for gated communities? Fine, lets introduce one.
>
>
> Why is that any different than a condo complex?
>
> both are privately owned residences with a common management/ HOA 
> company, with access control on a well defined landuse.
>
> Why is tagging a residential thing different in any way from a 
> industrial thing? why is the governmental stuff completely missing?
>
> again. Confusing.

+1
>
> Lay down a general category landuse. add a tag denoting it’s 
> particulars ( is it a works, a mall,  a city hall complex, or a 
> apartment complex?)
>
> Add the building=* areas (church, office, apartment, industrial 
> building) and the ref/name and all the other building crap.
>
> lay down the roads and amenities inside the landuse.
>
> if you want a tag to say “this residential area is a gated community” 
> to put on the landuse (like adding mall or works or whatever) that’s 
> fine. but my interest is standardizing and completing the landuse tag 
> usage.
>
> Why have landuse at all if you don’t finish the categories it could be 
> used for?
>
> Why have a landuse=* at all to denote area if you will deny its use 
> (arbitrarily) for some kinds of building complexes but use it on others?
>
> It really is a big mystery for me - and the fundamental conflict I an 
> trying to solve - as standardizing the landuse=* tag would greatly 
> help the mapping of urban and suburban cities - as not only laying out 
> the primary landuse let you understand the city, and then adding the 
> exception building or amenity *more accurately labels and represents 
> the real world*  - not to mention getting rid of so much ambiguity and 
> cruft on tagging things by their area (schools, hospitals, etc) - 
> because eventually, every single square meter of a city will have it’s 
> areas denotes - so why keep a scattershot and inconsistent method that 
> varies across so many things?
>
+1

The only point I think I see from Martin is tagging a landuse with a 
name etc. But I don't see that as a problem at all ...
If an area tagged landuse=hospital has a name etc then why should that 
not be put on it?
Same with a farm, industrial etc etc. Even a residential area - gated 
would be a good example access=destination, name etc...

What other 'object' is to have this name .. that is associated with the 
whole site? As the whole site can be mapped using landuse= I see no 
problem in using it as such.
Same as a park - one name ... even with multiple buildings, sports 
grounds ... the park has one name the other objects in it may have 
others .. or even the same name. Not a problem.

======================
I think Martin 'see's' a problem with use in a GPS where searches are 
conducted ... it is a 'problem' because there is no provision for 
including landuse in that. But that can change.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150830/07351154/attachment.html>