[Tagging] Mapping hotels on buildings or areas around buildings

[Neil Matthews]

> that’s many shops, crafts, offices and similar stuff. I think it’s already common practice to include the grounds if any are present (for smaller ones there won’t often be any grounds anyway, and most of them are probably mapped as nodes anyway)

Disagree. It probably depends on amount/quantity of imagery and how keen
people are to draw buildings -- and local mapping style (detailed or
"big picture").

Personally, I'd map the hotel as its building when it's clear --  since,
I would suggest that you can't actually "stay" in the grounds of a hotel
-- you stay in a room in a hotel building. Similarly, I'd add the
address on the building -- you can't typically check-in in a hotel's
garden -- you have to go to reception.

It would make /almost /more sense to me to have something like
landuse=hotel (landuse=amenity:hotel) for the grounds.
Then have amenity=hotel for the area where the principle service/amenity
is provided (and if the main amenity is in a building, add building=yes).
That would discriminate between the idea of the grounds and where the
main service/amenity is provided.
If the grounds are disjoint (split by highways) -- then keep them in a
site relation.

I guess keep the name/address on the main building/reception or on an
entrance node -- adding it to the landuse (grounds) will just "weaken"
routing (may make the  rendering confusing too)?

I think it would be good to see a few diagrams -- and a thought where
"name" and "addr:" tags should ideally go too?
And maybe a hint for renderers too :-)

Cheers,
Neil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170930/6b6fb09b/attachment.html>