[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (DEPRECATED building=funeral hall)

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Fri Sep 18 20:02:29 UTC 2020




Sep 18, 2020, 16:25 by mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com:

> On 18/09/2020 02.46, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>> building=church is building constructed as a church that now can
>> be a place of worship, warehouse, unused or something else but
>> retained building structure typical to a church
>>
>> amenity=place_of_worship is a place where regular worship is conducted
>> - it may be in a church, in open area, in former fish market, in building constructed
>> as a warehouse
>>
>
> Question: is https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7408471,-73.7805254,132a,35y,69.19h,53.87t/data=!3m1!1e3 a building=church? AFAIK it was constructed as a "church" (as a place of worship, anyway), but if you took down the signage and started to use it for another purpose, there would be no evidence that it ever used to be a place of worship; the construction *style* is absolutely *not* what is typically associated with a "church".
>
I would defer to decisions/interpretations of a local community, but if something like that appeared in
Poland I would tag it as building=supermarket (it matches exactly supermarket building, at least
from outside).

NOTE: I am unfamiliar with this specific type of architectural monstrosity, maybe
it should be handled differently.

maybe some term can capture this well


> Compare with > https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6822058,-73.840315,35a,35y,225.94h,69.88t/data=!3m1!1e3> , which still looks almost entirely generic from above, but at least has *some* features of a "traditional church".
>
Here building=church makes *some* sort of sense

>> Not sure whatever there are building where their structure makes them
>> recognizable as funeral halls, but in case where such building exist
>> correct tagging is building=funeral_hall (potentially also amenity=funerall_hall)
>>
>
> Possibly something like https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4139398,-84.0322268,53a,35y,89.44h,48.46t/data=!3m1!1e3 ...?
>
>

Maybe, GSV is too far away to allow remote tag theorethizing.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200918/4330f952/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list