[Tagging] Mapping hotels on buildings or areas around buildings

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Bryan Housel <bryan at 7thposition.com>
wrote:

> Yes, but the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dhotel
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism=hotel> page says
> "Set a node <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Node> or draw as an area
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Area> along the building outline."
>
> This is how iD interprets the tag - as a building outline.
>
> So if we collectively decide to change `tourism=*` tags to be property
> outlines (like hospitals and schools),
>
>
I've had this problem, both in designing my own rendering and in deciding
how
to tag things.

>From the rendering perspective:

I really like the idea that amenity=*, leisure=*, healthcare=*, tourism=*
refer
to the entire facility. If the facility is a single building, it's highly
desirable to
add 'building=yes' - and I'm perfectly OK with the idea that without the
building, no building is shown, but rather the facility is rendered as a
patch
of ground. That means that my pipeline fails to render a certain number of
buildings. That's better than covering an entire campus with the rendering
of a building.

>From the perspective of an individual mapper:

As a stopgap, in my own tagging, I'm careful, in facilities where buildings
and
grounds may be distinct, to tag the building(s) with 'building=whatever' and
the grounds with 'amenity=hospiltal' or 'tourism=hotel' or
'office=government'
or whatever - and add 'building=no'

I figure that if a renderer insists on interpreting something that is tagged
with 'building=no' as a building outline, that is no longer my problem.

>From the data management perspective:

There are basically three possibilities:

(1) An area object tagged as one of these facilities is presumed to
represent
the boundaries of the grounds, unless explicitly tagged as a building.

(2) An area object tagged as of these facilities is presumed to represent
a building unless tagged building=no.

(3) There is no guidance on how the facility object relates to the building.

I strongly favour (1):
Allow 'building=*' on all these facilities, but clearly indicate in the
description
of the facility tag that it is NOT presumed to be a building, but rather the
entire facility. It might be worthwhile having a Maproulette project to
identify
facilities that have no 'building=*' and do not contain a building. I don't
know
how many of these will be buildings and how many will (properly) be grounds
on which the buildings are not mapped.

Option (2):
The 'it's a building unless tagged otherwise' rule is an unattractive
second option, and forces mappers to add 'building=no' on the
polygon defining the grounds (which I do anyway, because of all
the strange interpretation that's out there, but shouldn't be needed).

Option (3):
"Do nothing" is what we have today. It requires renderers either to
miss buildings or to implement awkward heuristics to detect them,
and requires mappers to place extra tags (which may or may not
work) to attempt to guide the renderers. It's nasty.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170929/4b611ab6/attachment.html>