[Tagging] building typology vs usage

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 14:38, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Am So., 8. Sept. 2019 um 15:13 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com
> >:
>
>> Good idea.  A better idea might be to add it to the description, since it
>> is information that
>> may be useful to non-mappers: data consumers may suppress notes but allow
>> the
>> display of descriptions.  It's useful to know that the art studio you're
>> looking for is in a
>> church...
>>
>
>
> these descriptions could be autogenerated from semantically detailed
> tagging, localized for every language. You can add a lot of useful
> information to the descriptions, but it shouldn't substitute good tagging.
> Semantic tagging makes it possible to find church buildings where you can
> climb, descriptions don't.
>

I think you took my paragraph in isolation and missed the point.  I said
that if it was a church and
looks like a church then tag the building as a church even if it now
functions as something else.
Somebody said he added a note to the effect that it was once a church, I
said that note might be
better as a description.

The note or description are there to clarify the tagging in order to
minimize the risk of confusion
in somebody who has trouble reconciling building=church with
shop=convenience.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190911/4bd7c95f/attachment.html>