[Tagging] was: on poi (was: building=disused)

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 16 19:46:23 UTC 2020

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 19:15, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:

'Church'/'chapel' seem to be the unique example that everyone resorts
> to when identifying the former purpose of a building - because in so
> many places or denominations, the architecture is distinctive.

Yep.  Although I'd argue that supermarket is also (usually) distinctive.
are supermarket chains that often repurpose other buildings for small
branches, but most of the big chains have a distinctive style.  Big building
with large windows on at least one side being common to all.

Similarly, industrial buildings (at least those put up in recent decades)
tend to have a distinctive style.

It's not universally true of all churches/supermarkets/industrial units.  My
view is that if you'd give directions like "Turn left after the church"
because it
obviously looks like a church and used to be (or still is) a church, then
tag the
building as a church.

> Mapping 'things that used to be there' to warn mappers that they aren't
there - when there's strong but incorrect external evidence that they are or
> were in the field -  is an entirely reasonable thing to do.

One of the previous times this came up, a few from the "We don't map
history" crowd disagreed.  I feel that to be an overly-strict interpretation
of the rule.

Using tagging that doesn't render for those things is also perfectly fine -
> we don't want them cluttering the map.

More than just fine.  Desirable.  In fact, more than desirable, closer to

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200116/b09bca75/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list