[Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

Jez Nicholson jez.nicholson at gmail.com
Mon Mar 14 10:26:20 UTC 2016

I normally plot and tag a pub building as an area. I've noticed a few
points appearing for existing pubs. They may be coming from the new OSM
online editing programs.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 at 22:48, Neil Matthews <ndmatthews at plus.net> wrote:

> It's not my preferred style -- I prefer to draw the building and tag that.
> I'd expect to put the name and address on the building too!
> If I tag a large area, then there's a high likelihood that it'll adversely
> affect routing. Conversely tagging large areas makes the map look more
> complete.
> However, if I can't rely on a rendering to help me locate a public house
> (emphasis on the house :-) accurately on a map, especially at the end of a
> long day mapping, then that doesn't rely help. And since I use mapnik
> renderings and OSMAnd+ it's important that they work well -- especially as
> that way I find other non-obvious issues.
> Schools are somewhat different in that they aren't generally open to the
> public -- it's probably more important to map the entrances on the
> perimeter -- as more and more schools are fencing kids in and public out.
> But maybe we should use bar to mean where you actually get served? And pub
> for the whole area.
> Cheers,
> Neil
> On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote:
> Earlier today browsing Pascal Neis summary of changesets I noticed a
> comment about reverting a duplicate pub node, and glanced at the changeset
> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37749403>.
> The pub had indeed been added again (and subsequently removed). However
> what caught my attention was that the amenity=pub tag had been applied to
> the entire area of the pub grounds (car park, buildings etc.). A quick
> query on IRC and Andy (SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this way, however rarely
> with as much detail as this particular one. The general alternative is to
> map pubs as areas on the building of the pub.
> The obvious advantages of mapping the entire area of the pub property are
> largely to do with the immediate association of car parks, beer gardens,
> children's playgrounds with the pub and thus ready interpretation of things
> like access tags and resolution as to which car park belongs to the pub.
> This approach is clearly less cumbersome than using a relation, such as
> associatedCarpark (invented I believe by Gregory Williams in Kent).
> The disadvantages, at least to my mind, are:
>    - Non-intuitive. Certainly I have never thought of mapping pubs this
>    way, although I can see the point. I doubt that a newcomer to OSM would
>    find this the straightforwardly obvious approach.
>    - Pubs are licensed premises. The premises licensed usually relate to
>    the building.
>    - Where do we place tags associated with the pub premises which may
>    apply also to other parts of the pub property (an obvious one would be
>    opening_hours).
>    - Peculiar rendering. In this case a pub icon in a car park. Even if
>    we fully accept "not tagging for the renderer", let's consider how we can
>    tell renderers to improve icon placement. Andy suggested on IRC a label
>    node, but this implies a relation: do we want to replace a simple node &/or
>    area tag with a node, an area & a relation? And then ask the Carto-CSS team
>    to deal with it? It seems to me that this pushes the bar too high not just
>    for inexperienced mappers but also those of us who have been at it for a
>    while. In the meantime the CartoCSS rendering will look rather daft in such
>    cases.
>    - Consistency. In general pubs will get mapped initially as nodes over
>    the pub building, and attributes on a node easily transfer to a building
>    outline + (usually) building=pub. In particular the node & area centroid
>    will tend to be very close. Thus the two different ways of mapping relate
>    to each other in a clear way.
> This issue of course is more general than pubs. For instance we map
> schools, colleges, universities and hospitals as areas and place all the
> relevant tags on the area. Churches & other places of worship, on the other
> hand, tend to have the amenity tag placed on the building. (This makes
> sense as in many cases it is the building which is the place of worship not
> the grounds). Also, I certainly will map a supermarket as the building
> rather than the whole area including car parks, petrol stations etc.
> Obviously I prefer for supermarkets, places of worship and pubs that the
> area mapped should be the building. However I can equally see that there
> are certain issues which are otherwise intractable where mapping the whole
> area offers some advantages.
> One approach which would reflect my own mapping approach would be to tag
> the complete area associated with the pub as landuse=retail, with a tag
> such as retail=pub. This would require no more additional OSM elements than
> used at the moment, and would provide for the identification of
> associations with car parks etc (and would work fine with multipolygons for
> pubs where the car park is across the road or otherwise removed from the
> pub.
> This is an example of how as more stuff gets mapped different styles
> evolve. Neither is specifically wrong or right, but it would be nice if we
> could find a consistent style which satisfies most needs.
> Cheers,
> Jerry
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing listTalk-GB at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20160314/7b4ce5ee/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list