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