[Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
ET Commands
etcommands at gmail.com
Wed May 29 18:08:15 UTC 2019
> Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 20:34:52 +0200
> From: bkil <bkil.hu+Aq at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
>
> I can see what maintenance burden this notation could bring, but I would
> need more information to see what we could gain from it.
>
> landuse=* seemed appropriate for most use cases I have encountered. Why do
> we need to tag this on a building resolution?
Because landuse is for the entire property a building sits on, not the
building itself.
>
> What data consumers did you have in mind?
Mapmakers.
>
> What common interest does this annotation serve?
It allows you to symbolize "occupied" buildings differently from
"unoccupied" ones.
>
> What is the verification criteria? Do I need to station next to the
> building in working hours for a given amount of time and declare it
> occupied if I see any person entering or leaving, and mark it unoccupied
> otherwise? Or is it enough if I see indirect indications, such as open
> windows (what is they are motorized and remote controlled), lighting (some
> leave it always on for security)?
>
> Is it enough if I see a resident through the window? How do I know if the
> person is not merely a guard or an intermittent maintenance personal?
My personal criteria is not meant to be that exact. For example, I can
see from an aerial photo a large building surrounded by a large parking
lot. I can surmise that several or many people work in the building,
but I have no idea what they do there.
>
> If a storage building complex is only occupied by a guard (supervised=* /
> surveillance:type=guard), do you consider it occupied?
No.
>
> Do you consider weekend houses occupied if they are only occupied
> intermittently or even seasonally? How do I verify this?
Note that my question was in reference to buildings people work in, not
live in.
>
> Note that we usually do not add fixme kind of tagging for the sole purpose
> of marking the absence of regular information, as by definition, a blank
> map is missing an infinite amount of information and we would definitely
> not like to store so many fixme's.
I was not advocating the use of fixme's. Knowing that a building is
"occupied" is having more knowledge than simply knowing that a building
exists. It is not necessary to know everything about a feature in order
to map it. OpenStreetMap will never be "complete," because there will
always be more information that can be added to features.
>
> Although I acknowledge it is sometimes easy to distinguish abandoned
> buildings, especially if it is missing furniture, doors or windows, but we
> have life cycles for that.
True. But abandoned buildings are not the only buildings that people do
not work in. An example is storage buildings.
[...]
Mark
More information about the Tagging
mailing list