[Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag

johnw johnw at mac.com
Sun Feb 15 00:21:57 UTC 2015

> On Feb 13, 2015, at 11:51 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2015-01-03 16:28 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić <janjko at gmail.com <mailto:janjko at gmail.com>>:
> Landuse=religious AFAIK started being used for land that is owned by a religious entity, and in it there would be schools, playgrounds, priest living grounds, and so on. Then this was disputed
> +1, "religious" really isn't a _landuse_ in these cases, they seem perfect examples where a tag religion=* would do the trick and no new tag would be needed.

I’m still not understanding the confusion around the tag. If I took out the word “religious” and “religious entity” out of the example and put in 'retail' and ‘mall owner’ - there would be no problem putting landuse=retail on the site of a mall - which is well defined and easily mapped - and tagging amenities of the ground - AKA parking, gardens, playground, buildings, sheds, etc.  We can have churches tagged as a shop in a retail landuse - if there is a small shop stuck in the corner of a churchyard (and the churchyard is well defined), why is having the shop labeled remotely a problem? it’s simply part of the church facility grounds. 

While there are edge cases - usually where mapping the grounds are difficult -  there are probably hundreds of thousands of religious facilities that have well defined and easily mapped grounds, which include amenities for use by the patrons, or even the public.

Hospitals have easily defined grounds, and often have kids areas, shops - there are convenience stores in most large hospitals in Japan - but we would never exclude their presence from the hospital landuse. 

Similarly, Office buildings often have courtyards, outdoor speaking areas, and other large, not directly "office" related areas - but the 6 building campus at 1 infinite loop for Apple in Cupertino wouldn’t have only the 6 buildings tagged as commercial - the parking, courtyrd, the speaking area,  the company store, and support facilities are all part of “Apple Campus 1” - a single commercial landuse. 

The landuse many religious places occupy is the grounds of the facility, and the shape and outline of the grounds are often well defined - and more importantly - well known to the people in the community.  It is common to map temple grounds here in Japan - not only the buildings themselves, but the grounds they occupy, which is very easy to do with good imagery. 

The amenities - graveyards, gardens, parking, temples, belltowers, statures, and occasionally parks, playgrounds, and the home of the Monk(s) are considered to be “part of the temple facilities” Some may have daycare or preschool facilities - usually the larger, established “schools” then fall under the school landuse and the church is the operator - but the church itself takes up space - usually separate (and not necessarily adjacent) space - it is not a school. It is not a park. it is not a retail or commercial establishment. It is a religious facility. and as with any facility complex, there are amenities on the site of the facility. Why is having them included in a single “religious grounds” landuse not desired? Every basic landuse type needs a landuse tag.  Having amenity define the landuse (as with hospital and school) was a mistake, but one that cannot be rectified now. Every major building complex type deserves a landuse tag - otherwise it is confusing as hell to beginning mappers - and makes creating future landuse tags harder - hospital is excluded - what about fire stations? police stations? 

Having a landuse for “religion” seems simple to understand, simple to implement, and simple to parse when thinking of the facility as a single thing with many amenities - like a mall, office complex, or another large establishment that handles lots of visitors visitors and offers them amenities. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150215/bc041b28/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list