[Tagging] Colocated school/churchgrounds (was Re: multiple schools on one plot)

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 07:32 2021-04-09, Jmapb đã viết:
> On 4/8/2021 7:11 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> 
>> Vào lúc 06:55 2021-04-06, Jmapb đã viết:
>>>
>>> It's something you'd have to decide on a case-by-case basis. My
>>> questions would be -- Is everything in the area religious? Is everything
>>> in the area educational? You could make a case for tagging both, or
>>> overlapping to some degree.
>>
>> Interesting, it hadn't occurred to me to tag a shared grounds
>> simultaneously as amenity=school *and* landuse=religious. That would
>> at least allow a savvy data consumer to differentiate shared
>> school/churchgrounds. For example, an Overpass query would subtract
>> double-tagged amenity=school landuse=religious features from the
>> overall number of amenity=school features.
>>
> For tagging amenity=school over a large area, my question would be
> similar -- Is everything inside the area part of the school?

In my experience, even the sanctuary can serve a school function during 
the school day. At one church near me, they haul away the folding chairs 
and unretract the basketball hoops to turn it into a school gymnasium. 
The rectory and convent might not be school-related, but it feels 
pedantic to carve out a landuse=religious around just those buildings.

But I agree that this is where amenity=school stops being a great 
landuse tag, because the minimum bar for tagging other landuse is 
considerably lower. Otherwise it would be a quite problematic to map 
landuse from an armchair or much more of the world would be 
landuse=mixed. Shouldn't the key consideration be the general character 
of the place, not whether we can find exceptions to a homogenous use?

> There may be good reasons to double-tag some polygons as you describe,
> but I don't think it would alleviate the problem of using amenity=school
> as a pseudo-landuse tag. First, this problem is not at all confined to
> religious schools. Second, it's akin to troll tagging -- one tag
> shouldn't be presumed to undo another.

To be pedantic, I wouldn't view it as one tag undoing the other, just 
two completely overlapping tags reflecting completely overlapping land use.

-- 
minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us