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

Dave F davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
Mon Mar 14 13:18:35 UTC 2016

This corroborates what I said on the changeset & how I mapped it.

Dave F.

On 14/03/2016 10:43, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
> The one pub that I plotted, I added when I was doing a couple of 
> nearby schools and noticed that it was missing. I used exactly the 
> same principle as for the schools - an outer “amenity=pub”  polygon 
> and an inner “building=pub” for the actual building.
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389684953
> Personally, I think that this is fine. The fact that the pub icon sits 
> in the garden is hardly the end of the world, and the garden _is_ part 
> of the pub after all. And I bet if you turned up at the location you’d 
> be able to spot where the pub was :)
> My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that there is way too much 
> inconsistency in the way that things get mapped in OSM which makes it 
> difficult to understand the data. Country pubs, in particular, will 
> often have car parks & gardens as well as the physical building, and 
> using an enclosing polygon is surely the right way to make sure that 
> they are all kept together - and using a style of data that then 
> compares directly to other amenities like schools, hospitals, parks …
> Cheers
> Stuart
>> On 14 Mar 2016, at 10:26, Jez Nicholson <jez.nicholson at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:jez.nicholson at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 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 
>> <mailto: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 list
>>>     Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org  <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Talk-GB mailing list
>>     Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20160314/8aae2e3c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list