[Tagging] creameries

[Dave F]

 >you are confusing "type" and "style". The building=church tag is not 
necessarily about what would _you_ perceive as a church, but about what 
the locals using it can perceive as a church.

No. _I_ (& thousands of other contributors) assess churches & other 
buildings by the sign above the door. When the sign is removed because 
it _stops_ being a church, the building tag is changed.

 >No issue with the examples you have shown. Both seem to clearly 
provide mostly a big space suitable for celebrating a religious service, 
which is what churches are mostly built for. And both are "iconic" or at 
least standing out from the other buildings in the area.

Note, you're assessing them, by their visual style.

 >There is no need for a bell tower or something like this, in order to 
be a church, although this is what I would expect locally. "Style" is 
what something looks like (kind of ornament and decoration or absence of 
it, colors, shape, etc. both referring to the inside and outside)

This is how Yves assessed: "because the building have a church 
architecture". Have you not heard the expression 'built in the 
architectural *style* of...'?
Just because a building looks like how you guess a church should appear, 
it doesn't actually mean it is, or was ever, a church.

 > the building typology is about how a building works, how it is 
organized/structured.

But when a church (or whatever...) stops being a church, it stops 
*working* as a church. Its function isn't to be a church.

The glass shoe: If that became, say, a bingo hall, & you walked past it 
for the first time, how "would _you_ perceive it as a church" "type"? 
What knowledge & evidence would you be using?

DaveF

On 19/09/2021 14:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Sa., 18. Sept. 2021 um 00:57 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging 
> <tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:tagging at openstreetmap.org>>:
>
>     On 17/09/2021 20:44, Yves via Tagging wrote:
>     > Building=church is not used because it's a place of worship, but
>     > because the building have a church architecture.
>
>     If I was to build a residential property in a style that I, or more
>     importantly, you perceive as a church; & to then say it should be
>     tagged
>     as a church, even though it's *never* been one, is ridiculous.
>
>     The building:use tag inappropriately expects contributors to make
>     guesses bases purely on a building's visual appearance.
>
>     What does a 'architecturally like a church' church look like? it's so
>     varied.
>
>
>
>
> you are confusing "type" and "style". The building=church tag is not 
> necessarily about what would _you_ perceive as a church, but about 
> what the locals using it can perceive as a church. No issue with the 
> examples you have shown. Both seem to clearly provide mostly a big 
> space suitable for celebrating a religious service, which is what 
> churches are mostly built for. And both are "iconic" or at least 
> standing out from the other buildings in the area.
> There is no need for a bell tower or something like this, in order to 
> be a church, although this is what I would expect locally.
>
> "Style" is what something looks like (kind of ornament and decoration 
> or absence of it, colors, shape, etc. both referring to the inside and 
> outside) , the building typology is about how a building works, how it 
> is organized/structured.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210921/efd74a89/attachment.htm>