[Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Sat Jun 1 13:11:49 UTC 2019


On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 10:09, bkil <bkil.hu+Aq at gmail.com> wrote:

You've described the difference between specifying the high level landuse
> in an area (that may be even a few blocks large) compared to the proposed
> micro-mapping on buildings. This is correct, but I would like to know the
> reason, meaning what advantage would such a resolution carry to the map
> consumer?
>

About the only use I can think of is navigation.  Some of us use
building=church even when it
is no longer used as a place of worship but has been converted for
residential use because it
is recognizable as a church.  As in "Take the first left past the
church."   Not that building=church
(without amenity=place_of_worship) is rendered differently from an ordinary
building, but at least
the information is there if you use the query tool.  As in "I can see a
church, is it that building on the
map?"

I'm not convinced of the utility of this proposal for navigation, though.
Too subjective, too likely to
change with time and not very usable.  You see a building but nobody is
there.  Is that the one
that is tagged as occupied or not?  Is nobody there because it's a local
holiday, or because the
business has gone bust, or because when it was surveyed people were
stripping the fittings,
or...?

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190601/ffb11c6e/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list