[OSM-talk] Tagging Castles

[David Earl]

On 13/08/2007 15:07, Chris Fleming wrote:
> Abigail Brady wrote:
>> On 8/13/07, *David Earl* <david at frankieandshadow.com 
>> <mailto:david at frankieandshadow.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Dos this apply to all areas, and on which maps? It's not documented as
>>     far as I can see, and Ely Cathedral would benefit from this. Can't
>>     say I
>>     care about the process for getting it there, but if this is a
>>     useful tag
>>     that gets rendered on one or both maps, it would be handy to have
>>     it on
>>     map_features as it is de facto standard.
>>
>>
>> Can't speak for mapnik, but t at h will render any area with a building 
>> tag on it.  Suggest using "building=cathedral" or "building=castle", 
>> but "building=yes" would show up as well.
> The question is, having already labeled the castle with  
> historic=castle,  tourism=attraction and name="XXXX castle" adding 
> building=castle seems a little redundant?
> 
> So I've been thinking that it may be worth thinking of the building tag 
> more like a bridge tag, we have plenty of other tags to give details of 
> what something is and the building tag is a good way of indicating that 
> it's a building? (as apposed to an area on the ground for example)

That's as maybe, but the first step is to document how it works right 
now, I think.

Interestingly, in the example I gave, there *isn't* anything else that 
says it is a cathedral. (Yes it is a place_of_worship, but so are all 
churches etc), and there isn't a cathedral tag. I quite like 
building=something personally: there are castles which are not historic 
nor attractions; and there are many kinds of building for which we don't 
have explicit tags.

My point was, though, that I didn't know about it!

Talking of things I didn't know about, I found by accident that 
man_made=mast produces an icon in JOSM. Is this another case that I 
ought to know about but isn't documented?

David