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

Dave F davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
Mon Mar 14 15:08:43 UTC 2016


On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote:
> Earlier today browsing Pascal Neis summary of changesets

This is new to me. Is there a way find all changesets with my locale?

> 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.
>

Discovering many new things are often "Non-intuitive" & doesn't 
necessarily make them wrong. Given time to sink in they often become 
'normal'

>   * Pubs are licensed premises. The premises licensed usually relate
>     to the building.
>

If that were true then wouldn't the beer garden need a separate license?

>   * 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).
>

I'm unsure how common that would be, but it could go on the boundary as 
the garden might be used for each instance.

>   * 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.
>

A location tag was discussed a few years ago, unsure why it didn't catch 
on. It wouldn't need to be a relation, just a sub-tag of co-ordinates on 
the boundary way. It wouldn't be compulsory, if the co-ords weren't 
supplied, it would render centrally as it does now. All polygon 
entities, such as schools, hospitals etc. render centrally in precisely 
the same manner. In OSM things are only difficult to do if their not 
explained clearly. Good wiki descriptions are essential.

>   * 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.
>

As has been pointed out by others, mapping pubs this way will make it 
consistent with the tagging of other objects.

landuse=retail shouldn't be used for individual properties. It also 
doesn't link the entities together.

I don't see the centroid of the area being offset from the building as a 
problem for postcode location or routing.

IMO places of worship should also have an boundary tag to encompass all 
ancillary objects operated by the organisation, but that's for another 
discussion


Cheers
Dave F.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20160314/dfb5b9cb/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list