[OSM-talk] Mapping Qs: Hotel Complex? Beach? Enclosed Woodland?

Michael Collinson mike at ayeltd.biz
Wed Aug 22 11:53:46 BST 2007

At 11:20 AM 8/22/2007, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> >> Surely for the buildings and grounds, being able to make them part
> >> of a
> >> larger hotel 'entity' would be ideal...
> >
> > Maybe a tag for marking "lot" or "parcel".
>I've been toying with the idea of using "landuse" but that would then
>clash with a "landuse=residential" created for the area of the whole

I've been playing with using 
"landuse=residential" for large areas digitised 
from landsat + "layer=-10" so that I can put 
other specific smaller industrial, commercial, 
retail areas over the top as I identify them. I 
use a large negative number so that (hopefully) 
other features such as rivers, tunnels, parks 
will also appear over the top with no change.

Likewise I'm also experimenting with esoteric 
landuse= tags for micro-mapping.  There seems to 
be a general need emerging from a number of 
threads to distinguish an actual physical 
building from the grounds of the same building. Examples.

tourism=hotel, building=hotel   (node or area)
landuse=resort or landuse=hotel (larger area)

tourism=attraction, historic=castle, building=castle, name=...
landuse=castle or something more general

amenity=place_of_worship, building=place_of_worship, religion=...
landuse=cemetery (has a burial area) or 
landuse=place_of_worship (no burial area)


Oh, and yes, I also like the idea of some sort of 
general "lot" or "parcel" or parcel tag.  The 
NSW, Australia mapping agency shows them on their 
1:50,000 maps as I recall - it is useful 
particularly in areas where you have just a few 
buildings in a semi´-rural landscape.


More information about the talk mailing list