[Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

Colin Smale colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Thu Mar 17 08:21:59 UTC 2016

On 2016-03-17 08:49, Simon Poole wrote:

> - use of one building outline for a complex of potentially more than one
> building that are adjacent and not easily divided in to individual
> component structures (I had to laugh at the suggested "can stand on its
> own" criteria, having seen other building collapse when one in a row has
> been demolished).

It can conjour up some amusing images, I agree, and maybe not entirely
perfect. But what I wrote is based on the fact that this was one of the
heuristic criteria for the Dutch government in an exercise over the past
few years of giving every "building" an identifier, with an N:M relation
with ownership and habitation (i.e. one building can contain (parts of)
multiple occupancy units, and one occupancy unit can be spread over
multiple buildings or parts thereof. Other criteria included the ability
for a human to stand. 

A typical summary of the definition of a "building" for these purposes
is "de kleinste bij de totstandkoming functioneel en
bouwkundig-constructief zelfstandige eenheid die direct en duurzaam met
de aarde is verbonden [1] en betreedbaar en afsluitbaar is" is a basic
description, which translates to "the smallest unit which is
constructionally independent, built directly upon the ground, enterable
(by a human) and lockable" 

Is a bus shelter or a bridge a "building"? If a house is substantially
extended to create a new independent living area, at what point does
that become a new Building? 

Not that I am suggesting we have such strict rules... but some well
thought-out guidelines would help to assure a bit of consistency. 


[1] https://www.amsterdam.nl/stelselpedia/woordenboek/#Duurzaamverbonden
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160317/06bbeb10/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list