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

Tom Pfeifer t.pfeifer at computer.org
Tue Feb 17 22:32:49 UTC 2015

fly wrote on 2015-02-17 23:12:
>>> I still do not understand, why we can not use religion=* without any
>>> landuse.
>> on which area description?
> I have no problem to additionally add amenity=place_of_worship or
> appropriate tag to the area.

I have.

> The same is true for supermarket with there
> own area including parking. No problem to tag the whole area
> shop=supermarket. For buildings we have building=*.

I have a problem with this method. DIY markets here do their
trading within the building and fenced outdoor areas. That's the
shop, within and without building. Together with facilities like
car parks, often shared among shops, they form the landuse=retail.

> Maybe we just lack of a proper tag to describe the area but
> landuse=religious is a poor answer.
> Anyway, we probably need more of the primary tags anyway as people look
> at things from different perspectives and we already have the same
> scenario with landuse=forest vs natural=woods vs land_cover=tree.
>>> As far as I understand there can be only one landuse but neither the
>>> proposal nor the wiki page really faces the problem especially regarding
>>> deprecating other landuse like cemetery without offering a replacement.
>> it is probably for historic reasons that cemetery slipped into the
>> landuse category. It would be logical to migrate it to amenities, such
>> as graveyard.
> I understand landuse=cementry as a land use but not religious. Anyway we
> are using amenity=hospital for the whole area without any use of landuse.

There are plenty of cemeteries that are dominated by a particular religion.

The general problem I see is that people cite historic inconsistencies in the
current tagging scheme as arguments against improvements.


More information about the Tagging mailing list