[Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Tue Jul 7 22:04:38 UTC 2020

On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 22:41, Skyler Hawthorne <osm at dead10ck.com> wrote:

> My own personal interpretation would be to say that if two houses share
> a wall, they are part of the same building. Buildings are expanded all
> the time. If a shopping mall expands a wing to give more space for more
> shops, we do not say the new section is a separate building; we say the
> building has gotten larger.

Copyright prevents us using Google Streetview for mapping, but we
can use it for illustrative purposes.  https://goo.gl/maps/o6ribodaAqUhvak2A
That group of five dwellings was originally called Priory Terrace (the name
is not part of the address and few people know it used to be called that).
They were built at the same time by the same builder and are listed
by a heritage organization as being of significant value.

Talk a walk to the north-east (left in the image) and you will see a long
of conjoined buildings of different styles.  Most (all?) of those other
were built after the first 5, yet it would be perverse to describe
them as extending or enlarging those original 5 dwellings.  They're
houses that happen to share side walls (because it's cheaper and
lets them take up less room).

I said this earlier in the thread, but I think it is still applicable:
> when we're tagging shopping centers, where there is a large building
> containing several shops, we tag the large structure as
> building=retail, and the shops as amenity=*; we do not map them as
> building=shop or something like that, because they are not separate
> buildings. Why do this for houses/dwellings?

Because if you followed that Streetview walk, you'd have countered 33
dwellings in that terrace.  It's nice to be able to give them addresses.
Because they're of different sizes, it's nice to show where the boundaries
between them are.  This is the start of that walk:

Your personal justificatons for your mapping choices are perfectly
> fine, but that's not what I'm proposing changing. Since it is not well-
> defined what to do when a terrace has a name, that is why I am
> proposing the tagging scheme with a different usage of building=terrace
> than what you and the wiki say,

My opinion counts for no more than anybody else's, so you are free to
disregard it.  Redefining established use of a tag is problematic.  To say
the least.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200707/0d0d6766/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list