[OSM-talk] Problem with usage of other values than yes for key building

[Peter Wendorff]

Hi,
there was a discussion in the past about the difference.

building=church may be a building that looks like and perhaps was a
church once, but is e.g. a restaurant, disco or residential house now.
It may still be a church building, with a tower and a tower bell, high
curved windows and so on, without being a place_of_worship.

Same holds for a school or hospital, that look different when it's later
used for apartments than a building originally built for apartments.

The other way around an amenity=school may be placed in a set of
building=bungalow, or in an old monastery, where you see the building is
a monastery, including a cloister, a chapel and stuff like that, which
might be abandoned as such.

So I support that the wiki should reflect that difference and point to
the other value respectively, but it's not redundant as for most
combinations you'll be able to find a counter example.

Regards
Peter

Am 10.03.2015 um 21:35 schrieb Stefan Keller:
> Hi,
> 
> I have a problem with the usage values other yes in key building.
> It seems to me that this any other usage of building=yes (for area
> type) is almost purely redundant.
> 
> When looking at taginfo [1], building has following three top most key usages:
> yes  119260798 85%
> house 11592812 8%
> residential 3145218 2%
> ...
> 
> So, other than "yes" has a frequency of 15% and less.
> 
> Then, when looking at the wiki page [2] it mostly points to
> alternative tags, like
> * building=apartment => tourism=apartment
> * building=hotel => tourism=hotel
> * building=warehouse => shop=department_store (no indication to that
> in warehouse
> * building=church/cathedral =>  amenity=place_of_worship
> * building=school/hospital => amenity=school/hospital
> 
> Sometimes when looking at wiki pages of building=* they even don't
> mention the preferred tagging, like building=apartment [3].
> 
> I tend to stipulate that any other value than yes for key building
> should be deprecated.
> Or am I missing something?
> 
> Yours, S.
> 
> [1] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/building#values
> [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building
> [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dapartments
> 
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>