[Tagging] building and man_made -- was: Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (artwork_type=maypole)

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Tue Nov 9 16:21:49 UTC 2021




Nov 8, 2021, 23:05 by georg2016 at nurfuerspam.de:

> Dear all,
>
> on 2021-10-21 13:40, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>> man_made is not for "structural structure like a building"
>>
>> we use building=* for that
>>
>
> When reading this bold claim I thought it's on very, very thin ice in
> the sense our definitions for man_made and building are IMHO somewhat
> unsuited to *clearly tell apart* between the two.
>
> So I looked a little into that topic; some details (you may skip this
> section): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building tells "a
> building is a man-made structure with a roof, standing more or less
> permanently in one place". Okay.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:man_made lists e.g.
> * lighthouse. It even contains the term "house" in the name and people
> use(d) to live in many of them! It has a roof and all characteristics of
> a building. Still, we don't have a building value for them.
>
that is because lighthouse (emitter of light) and lighthouse building
can exist independently

Lighthouse buildings are mapped as building=*

See say https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/266318886 or other
mapped ones.

> * dovecote. Even the picture in the wiki shows an object having a roof
> and looking very much like a building and matching the definition of a
> building. So why is it in man_made? Moreover, it's for an extremely
> similar purpose like a cowshed, stable or sty - but still, it is
> classified as a completely type of entity...hard to see this as consistent.
>
No idea about this one.

> * bridge. For bridges with a roof - excepted for skywalks - we don't
> have a building value despite they are meeting the definition, like e.g.
> https://vietnam.de/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/04/VIE_2011_1JEH_Bruecke_2618_5d2-2.jpg
>  Same story with goods_conveyor, pier, etc.
>
pier and goods conveyor, at least to me is not 
"structural structure like a building"

No idea about this bridge, I have not really encountered objects like this.

> * crane. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oestricher_Kran has a roof, looks
> like a building and fulfills definition of building. Again, we don't
> have a building value for them.
>
building=industrial ? Either way, building=yes would be typically
sufficient. We have not yet building values for many things, which are
often mapped building=yes and clearly are buildings.

In many cases there are clearly good option better than building=yes
I just created https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dlighthouse

>  Same for communications_tower. Even the
> picture in the wiki shows a tower having a roofed & enclosed story and
> thus meeting building definition, many other communication towers like
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Fernsehturm fulfill the
> definition of a building even more clearly, but we don't have a building
> value for them. Similar for  gasometer, monitoring_station, observatory,
> offshore_platform, reservoir_covered, silo, storage_tank,
> street_cabinet, stupa, watermill, etc.
>
street_cabinet is definitely not a building, building=silo is controversial
but there are over 33 000 of them in use - 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=silo

And https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/556435241 ( Berliner Fernsehturm )
is marked with building=yes

> Conclusion:
> For all of these man_made values, we do not use building=* despite
> building definition is fulfilled. 
>
Definitely not for all of them. I have not made full review of all this claims but 
not all of them are actually matching OSM mapping.

> To me, it seems we did
> really mess up these 2 keys. IMHO changing the definitions so they do
> exactly match the current values _and_ be easy to understand will be
> impossible.
>
Oh I agree. highway=road, highway=unclassified are other example
and I even started https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Counterintuitive_key_names 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211109/4f97a7ec/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list