[Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

Matthew Woehlke mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com
Wed Jul 8 13:43:18 UTC 2020

On 07/07/2020 19.31, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> these are technical details that might vary, don’t know about your
> jurisdiction and real estate market, but around here you do indeed
> own a fraction of the building exterior and gardens, typically the
> sum of all apartment surface areas is considered a 100%, and your
> share of roof terrace, storage, internal access space and garden is
> the fraction of your apartment divided by the total of apartment
> areas. It’s also a liability (maintenance cost etc.). You also own
> this fraction of the lot/ground.

But do you own a "share", or a *specific delineated portion*? IOW, say 
you own 25% of the playground; is there a legal line that you can draw 
on a map that specifies *which* 25%, or is it just 25% in an ephemeral 
sense (as is, to my understanding, usually the case in e.g. shared 
ownership of a business, or for that matter, shared ownership when a 
husband and wife own a house)? Are there legal deeds to this effect?

With row houses, there is a legal deed which precisely specifies what 
parts of the building belong to which owners.

> On 7. Jul 2020, at 23:51, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> It looks like what we have here are "townhouses", which are
>> somewhere in between "strict" row houses and condominiums
> just that there is no „town“ 

The difference between a row house and a "townhouse" (which might be a 
US thing) is that the exterior maintenance is handled by an association, 
to which you pay dues, and you can't modify the exterior without 
permission. Often, as in the original example in this thread, the 
exterior is more "clearly" a single, uniform structure as well. Both 
involve individual lots which split up the building, but what I would 
call a "strict" row house, the lot owner is responsible for the exterior 
of his/her lot.

I've lived in both.

>> I'm still inclined to argue that whether or not the *lots* are 
>> separate is probably a sensible criteria. I suspect that in your
>> "shared apartment ownership" example, the case is that the multiple
>> owners each own a 'share' of a *single* property.
> it is possible (and more likely), but you could also undergo
> procedures to actually split the property (maybe not in every case,
> or by 12.4%, I admit I am unsure, but suppose the split parts
> eventually must be independently usable, which is often but not
> always possible)

Right, that's what I'm suggesting as a recommendation for 
apartment-style modeling vs. individual building modeling. We generally 
(AFAIK?) don't try to incorporate ownership information into the map 
(well, aside from maintenance purposes), but I can absolutely argue that 
mapping individual land deeds is useful and/or interesting.

In some sense, I could say that the question is whether the building is 
*legally* multiple separate properties. For townhouses and row houses, 
the answer is (typically) "yes". For apartments and condominiums, the 
answer is (typically) "no". So the recommendation would be "look up the 
property boundaries, and is they split the building, model it as split 
at the property boundaries, otherwise model it as a single building".


More information about the Tagging mailing list