[Tagging] Buildings mixing residential and commercial use

[John Eldredge]

This makes sense to me.  In Nashville, Tennessee, USA, where I live, it is 
becoming stylish for young professional people to live in downtown 
apartments. These buildings usually have retail, restaurants, and/or 
offices at ground level and perhaps a floor or two higher, then apartments 
(flats) on higher floors. It makes sense to tag these buildings as 
building=mixed.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- john at jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot 
drive out hate; only love can do that." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.



On August 31, 2015 7:23:02 AM Tod Fitch <tod at fitchdesign.com> wrote:

> In my area there are a number of new buildings either recently completed or 
> still under construction that can only be described as a mixed use type: 
> The street level is steel and concrete construction and designed 
> specifically for retail. Above that are 3 to 5 wood framed floors 
> specifically designed as apartments. More recent satellite imagery on a 
> couple of buildings shows the upper residential floors to be typically 
> built around a center courtyard with a swimming pool (having observed 
> construction of the buildings, I am sure the swimming pools are above the 
> level of the retail shops, not at the ground level).
>
> Completed, the look of the buildings is pretty recognizable from the street 
> with the fairly tall retail floor below and shorter floors of obvious 
> residential above. I guess it could be confused with a badly designed urban 
> hotel, but it sure would not be confused with an office building or 
> traditional apartment building.
>
> So building=apartments obviously is not accurate. Nor is building=retail. 
> Apartments here are considered commercial so I could see a mapper using 
> building=commercial even though OSM would frown on that. It makes sense to 
> me to tag that building style as building=mixed.
>
> Cheers,
> Tod
>
>
>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 11:53 PM, Danijel Schorlemmer <osm at schorlemmer.net> wrote:
>>
>> What about
>>
>> building=apartments
>> building:use=residential;commercial (or retail)
>>
>> building=mixed doesn't seem to me to be a useful building tag. The building
>> tag should describe the type of building, not its use.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, August 31, 2015 10:26:27 AM Warin wrote:
>>> On 31/08/2015 8:58 AM, John Willis wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 31, 2015, at 12:05 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> uilding=commercial is quite suspect.
>>>>
>>>> To me, there are 2 basic types of mixed use buildings.
>>>>
>>>> mixed_use_urban
>>>> And
>>>> mixed_use_house
>>>>
>>>> There are so many different combinations of retail, residential, hotel,
>>>> and commercial (and in come cases, attraction) That as long as there is
>>>> some kind of residential space (apartments/condos), then it would be
>>>> mixed_use_urban. This is especially true if the public facing  part (the
>>>> bottom floor or the side towards the street) are non-residential use (a
>>>> business/shop/not parking).
>>> snip
>>>
>>>> So i suggest those two building types to denote these two basic types of
>>>> mixed use.
>>> I think it better to bite the bullet and start sub tagging correctly ...
>>> thus for a retail mixed with apartments
>>>
>>> building=mixed (or =yes etc)
>>> building:retail=yes
>>> building:apartment=yes
>>>
>>> ? More thoughts please...
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging