[Tagging] building typology vs usage

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 13. Sept. 2019 um 15:20 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org>:

> On 11/09/2019 14:50, Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Buildings don't have a 'type'. There's no 'class', no standard
> architectural style or size. A quick image search proves that.
>


maybe you should extend your search, and go beyond images ;-)

The typology of buildings is for example a subject in architectural studies
at the university ("Gebäudekunde"). You will find tens of thousands of
books about building typology (usually each dealing with only a narrow
topic, e.g. hotels, hospitals, office buildings, production buildings,
specific types of apartment buildings, specific military buildings, etc.)

A supermarket, prison church or townhall will typically by recognizable as
such (with the exception of those that are built on purpose to not stand
out), as will a hotel, an office or a residential building. Sure, you do
not need an office building to set up an office, but this doesn't mean
there aren't office buildings.

buildings do have a type, but of course you're right, if you look at a very
generic type like "residential" you will find all kind of dwellings and you
won't recognize a common style or type. To recognize similarities, you'd
have to go into more detail, e.g. terraced houses (that's clearly a kind of
residential building type, with usually one unit per entrance (may be split
now), a narrow garden to the back (usually), etc.).


OSM "is a place for mapping things that are both real and current"
>
> 'building=*' is to indicate its current usage.
>
>

no, its current building type.

Cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190915/d1b64def/attachment.html>