Adding leisure=sports_hall to leisure=sports_centre page

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
42 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: building typology vs usage

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 7. Sep 2019, at 11:00, Frederik Ramm <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> however, depending on location and denomination,
> you might also build a church using a blueprint for a plain community
> centre. In that case would it still be building=church becasue that was
> the original, intended use?


from my understanding you would be building a community centre with the intent of using it also for divine services.


Ciao Martin


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding leisure=sports_hall to leisure=sports_centre page

Tom Pfeifer
In reply to this post by Hufkratzer
On 07.09.2019 07:57, Hufkratzer wrote:
> Recently you [jesienbe] added to the wiki page for sports_centre that sports halls inside of sports centres
> don't need a leisure tag if the centre is mapped as an area.

And this is wrong, as it fails the purpose of the leisure=sports_hall tag.

As I remember the tag development, any value like 'gym/gymnasium' was deliberately avoided because
it has too many different local meanings, ranging from fitness over weightlifting over climbing gym
over school sport up to the German word for a secondary school itself. [1]

Therefore the slightly more stilted leisure=sports_centre came into use for any facility where
sports are performed and was widely accepted (183k).

This however led to the situation that
a) a simple school facility with a wooden floor and a changing room is not really a 'centre',
b) sport campuses with several buildings for different sports became tagged with
leisure=sports_centre, and the buildings leisure=sports_centre again, inside of the campus.

The solution was found in 2018 with activating a tag with small usage that time,
leisure=sports_hall, which solves both cases,
a) having a tag for a small individual facility,
b) having a tag for each of several facilities like the rowing hall, the climbing hall, the ice
skating hall, you might have on a campus that is a centre for having a multitude of such facilities,
accompanied by the sports pub.

This tag is growing rapidly since.

Any buildling=* tagging describes the original building typology and is orthogonal to the usage, see
my other mail.

Please recognise that the world is not black and white, and there is a continuous spectrum of sport
facility sizes. So while there are examples that are clearly 'just a sports hall' or a 'large
centre', there will be edge cases, where the hall gets a reception that sells you a coffee, and then
a little weight-lifting corner, and so on, so an individual decision would have to been made to
decide to mark that as a hall or a centre.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Gymnasium

tom

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding leisure=sports_hall to leisure=sports_centre page

sdoerr
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On 07/09/2019 01:33, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Re: > "My UK school had both a gym and a sports hall."
>
> What was the difference between the two? Was the gym like a "fitness
> centre" for weight training, perhaps? In US English we tend to use
> "gym" for what seems to be a "sports hall" in some dialects, and also
> for "weight lifting gyms" and "fitness centres" full of exercise
> equipment.

The sports hall was a big echoy place with a concrete floor, on which
lines were painted in different colours for different sports. You'd use
the whole space for a game of five-a-side football (soccer) or
basketball, or else there was room for three or four badminton courts to
be set up next to each other. Table-tennis tables could also be wheeled
out, I think.

The gym(nasium) was much smaller, shiny wooden floor, equipped with
things like a vaulting horse, parallel bars, wall bars and hanging ropes
for climbing, and there were things like medicine balls and bean bags
for exercising, rubber mats to put down on the floor etc. Basically for
gymnastics and general physical exercise, rather than sports as such. No
exercise *machines* back then, but I see from the school's website that
has changed a bit:
https://0e58658be539ee7325a0-220f04f871df648cf4a4d93a111e3366.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/williamson/uploads/asset_image/2_477_e.jpg

--
Steve

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: building typology vs usage

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 10:03, Frederik Ramm <[hidden email]> wrote:

When we say "a cafe in an old church" we think of a building that has
certain properties that make it discernible as a church even long after
it ceased to be one; however, depending on location and denomination,
you might also build a church using a blueprint for a plain community
centre. In that case would it still be building=church becasue that was
the original, intended use? What if apartments are put into an old
factory building - building=industrial and ...?

I think ducks are important.  Most people know what a traditional church or chapel
look like.  Navigational instructions might be "Carry on up that road until you see
a church on your left, take the next turn to the right."  This church
https://goo.gl/maps/yyXYZcucuWwpyu7z9 quacks like a church.  This chapel
https://goo.gl/maps/tJ7XDt6tCM1xcyR89 quacks like a chapel.  And this church
https://goo.gl/maps/w5ce112JVP5C7cCE9 honks like your five-year-old found your
stash of vodka, got hammered, and then started playing with his Lego.

Some buildings are recognizable for what they are (or were).  Others are not.
We live in an imperfect world, so we use our judgement (however flawed that
might be).

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: building typology vs usage

Tom Pfeifer
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
On 07.09.2019 11:00, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> It is true that this is the canonical way of dealing with things,
> however it would be interesting to check how mappers and editing tools
> actually use this. We might well find that everyone is confused about this.
>[...]
> I think we cannot simply throw the distinction over board and therefore
> I do not agree with Josh, but I also think the distinction is not really
> well thought out/well implemented in OSM and needs clarification.

In cases for usage apparently contradicting the building type it often helps the fellow mapper to
tag a note that this school building was converted into a hostel, or this church building is used
for climbing now.

tom

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding leisure=sports_hall to leisure=sports_centre page

Warin
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
On 07/09/19 19:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 7. Sep 2019, at 09:28, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Per taginfo, building=yes is used 7500 times with leisure=pitch, and
>> covered=yes is used 1017 times, so I suppose it's more common to match
>> the pitch with the same outline as the building rather than using
>> covered=yes and a separate building outline.
>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/leisure=pitch#combinations
>
> for German sports halls in schools, tagging a single covered pitch would not usually be a nice representation, because these places are optimized for versatility: you can do a lot of different sports, and you will usually find several overlapping pitches (marked in different colors). There will also be equipment for gymnastics (high bar, parallel bars, mattresses, ropes, ...) and whatever is taught.

I have been mapping overlapping sports pitches for a while now.
All from satellite imagery so outside.

The advantage of mapping them individually is that you can see for one configuration if one tennis court is in use you cannot use the netball or basketball courts as either tennis court over laps both of them, or the tennis court only overlaps one of them leaving the other side free. Of course the configuration is fixed by the line makings and equipment provisions.

I don't think there is a way of tagging many of the individual gymnastic sports, most can be moved some as fixed.

Different line colours can be mapped as there are tags for it. The basketball and netball wiki pages have the tag descriptions for the line marking, hoops etc.



Some outside pitches have a roof over them for sun/rain, so I'd think that is where the tag for covered=yes comes from.



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding leisure=sports_hall to leisure=sports_centre page

Hufkratzer
On 08.09.2019 11:41, Warin wrote:
 > On 07/09/19 19:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
 >>
 >> sent from a phone
 >>> On 7. Sep 2019, at 09:28, Joseph Eisenberg
<[hidden email]> wrote:
 >>>
 >>> Per taginfo, building=yes is used 7500 times with leisure=pitch, and
 >>> covered=yes is used 1017 times, so I suppose it's more common to match
 >>> the pitch with the same outline as the building rather than using
 >>> covered=yes and a separate building outline.
 >>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/leisure=pitch#combinations
 >>
 >> for German sports halls in schools, tagging a single covered pitch
would not usually be a nice representation, because these places are
optimized for versatility: you can do a lot of different sports, and you
will usually find several overlapping pitches (marked in different
colors). There will also be equipment for gymnastics (high bar, parallel
bars, mattresses, ropes, ...) and whatever is taught.
 >
 > [...]
 >
 > Some outside pitches have a roof over them for sun/rain, so I'd think
that is where the tag for covered=yes comes from.

How would you tag this covered riding arena? :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjVCeE-4Ht0

leisure=sports_hall + building=sports_hall ?
leisure=sports_hall + building=roof ?
leisure=pitch + building=roof ?
leisure=pitch + covered=yes ? (pitch is covered by what?)
leisure=pitch + covered=yes + building=roof ? (pitch is covered by roof,
but that's obvious because of building=roof)

How would you tag the covered horse walker (middle one) on this page? :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:animal=horse_walker

...=horse_wakler + building=roof ?
...=horse_wakler + covered=yes ? (horse_wakler is covered by what?)
...=horse_wakler + covered=yes + building=roof ? (horse_wakler is
covered by roof, but that's obvious because of building=roof)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Adding leisure=sports_hall to leisure=sports_centre page

Joseph Eisenberg
If there's a horse riding arena with a roof (with 2 or 3 open walls)
that covers just the riding area, I would probably map a single closed
way with building=roof + leisure=pitch.

If there are other areas under the same roof, like bandstands to watch
the show and changing areas or toilets, it would be idea to map the
area of the pitch and the area of the building=roof separately, and
then I might add covered=yes to the leisure=pitch (though I suppose
this is not strictly necessary).

If there are 4 solid walls, I would use `building=riding_hall` - see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Abuilding%3Driding_hall

Re: "How would you tag the covered horse walker (middle one)"

horse_walker + covered=yes, and map the roof separately. You could add
building=roof if it's mapped as an area and the area is the same as
the roof, but in your example the roof is donut-shaped.

On 9/8/19, Hufkratzer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 08.09.2019 11:41, Warin wrote:
>  > On 07/09/19 19:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>  >>
>  >> sent from a phone
>  >>> On 7. Sep 2019, at 09:28, Joseph Eisenberg
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  >>>
>  >>> Per taginfo, building=yes is used 7500 times with leisure=pitch, and
>  >>> covered=yes is used 1017 times, so I suppose it's more common to match
>  >>> the pitch with the same outline as the building rather than using
>  >>> covered=yes and a separate building outline.
>  >>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/leisure=pitch#combinations
>  >>
>  >> for German sports halls in schools, tagging a single covered pitch
> would not usually be a nice representation, because these places are
> optimized for versatility: you can do a lot of different sports, and you
> will usually find several overlapping pitches (marked in different
> colors). There will also be equipment for gymnastics (high bar, parallel
> bars, mattresses, ropes, ...) and whatever is taught.
>  >
>  > [...]
>  >
>  > Some outside pitches have a roof over them for sun/rain, so I'd think
> that is where the tag for covered=yes comes from.
>
> How would you tag this covered riding arena? :
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjVCeE-4Ht0
>
> leisure=sports_hall + building=sports_hall ?
> leisure=sports_hall + building=roof ?
> leisure=pitch + building=roof ?
> leisure=pitch + covered=yes ? (pitch is covered by what?)
> leisure=pitch + covered=yes + building=roof ? (pitch is covered by roof,
> but that's obvious because of building=roof)
>
> How would you tag the covered horse walker (middle one) on this page? :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:animal=horse_walker
>
> ...=horse_wakler + building=roof ?
> ...=horse_wakler + covered=yes ? (horse_wakler is covered by what?)
> ...=horse_wakler + covered=yes + building=roof ? (horse_wakler is
> covered by roof, but that's obvious because of building=roof)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: building typology vs usage

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Tom Pfeifer
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 at 10:09, Tom Pfeifer <[hidden email]> wrote:

In cases for usage apparently contradicting the building type it often helps the fellow mapper to
tag a note that this school building was converted into a hostel, or this church building is used
for climbing now.

Good idea.  A better idea might be to add it to the description, since it is information that
may be useful to non-mappers: data consumers may suppress notes but allow the
display of descriptions.  It's useful to know that the art studio you're looking for is in a
church...

--
Paul



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: building typology vs usage

dieterdreist
Am So., 8. Sept. 2019 um 15:13 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen <[hidden email]>:
Good idea.  A better idea might be to add it to the description, since it is information that
may be useful to non-mappers: data consumers may suppress notes but allow the
display of descriptions.  It's useful to know that the art studio you're looking for is in a
church...



these descriptions could be autogenerated from semantically detailed tagging, localized for every language. You can add a lot of useful information to the descriptions, but it shouldn't substitute good tagging. Semantic tagging makes it possible to find church buildings where you can climb, descriptions don't.


Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: building typology vs usage

Paul Allen
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 14:38, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Am So., 8. Sept. 2019 um 15:13 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen <[hidden email]>:
Good idea.  A better idea might be to add it to the description, since it is information that
may be useful to non-mappers: data consumers may suppress notes but allow the
display of descriptions.  It's useful to know that the art studio you're looking for is in a
church...


these descriptions could be autogenerated from semantically detailed tagging, localized for every language. You can add a lot of useful information to the descriptions, but it shouldn't substitute good tagging. Semantic tagging makes it possible to find church buildings where you can climb, descriptions don't.

I think you took my paragraph in isolation and missed the point.  I said that if it was a church and
looks like a church then tag the building as a church even if it now functions as something else.
Somebody said he added a note to the effect that it was once a church, I said that note might be
better as a description.

The note or description are there to clarify the tagging in order to minimize the risk of confusion
in somebody who has trouble reconciling building=church with shop=convenience.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: building typology vs usage

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
By the way, there are currently 5 objects with the tagging on the same object.
{
  "type": "way",
  "id": 59218539,
    "tags": {
    "addr:housenumber": "8",
    "addr:street": "Pier Place",
    "building": "church",
    "leisure": "sports_centre",
    "name": "Alien Rock",
    "note": "former St Andrew's Church",
    "phone": "+44 131 552 7211",
    "source": "NLS_OS_Edinburgh_map_1940s;Bing;survey",
    "sport": "climbing",
    "url": "http://www.alienrock.co.uk/"
  }
},
{
  "type": "way",
  "id": 93180076,
  "tags": {
    "building": "church",
    "leisure": "sports_centre",
    "name": "Kletterkirche",
    "old_name": "St. Peter",
    "sport": "climbing",
    "wheelchair": "no",
    "wikidata": "Q20181755"
  }
},
{
  "type": "way",
  "id": 202350995,
  "tags": {
    "building": "church",
    "leisure": "fitness_station",
    "name": "Three Wise Monkeys",
    "source": "OS_OpenData_StreetView",
    "source:location": "Bing",
    "sport": "climbing"
  }
},
{
  "type": "way",
  "id": 275133732,
  "tags": {
    "HE_ref": "1025007",
    "alt_name": "The Bristol Climbing Centre",
    "building": "church",
    "listed_status": "Grade II*",
    "name": "Undercover Rock",
    "old_name": "Saint Werburgh's Church",
    "sport": "climbing",
    "wikidata": "Q7595628",
    "wikipedia": "en:St Werburgh's Church, Bristol"
  }
},
{
  "type": "way",
  "id": 381773790,
  "tags": {
    "addr:city": "Newcastle Upon Tyne",
    "addr:street": "Shields Road",
    "building": "church",
    "building:material": "stone",
    "leisure": "sports_centre",
    "name": "Newcastle Climbing Centre",
    "note": "formerly St Marks Church",
    "phone": "+44 191 265 6060",
    "sport": "climbing",
    "website": "www.newcastleclimbingcentre.co.uk"
  }
}
  ]
}

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: building typology vs usage

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
On 11/09/2019 14:50, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> I said that if it was a church and looks like a church then tag the building as a church even if it now functions as something else.

Buildings don't have a 'type'. There's no 'class', no standard
architectural style or size. A quick image search proves that.

OSM "is a place for mapping things that are both real and current"

'building=*' is to indicate its current usage.

/If/ there's an insistence on recording it's original usage, if actually
*known*,not just observed, then an appropriate *clearly defined* tag
should be used. Something along the lines of 'original building use".

Frederik suggests "Everyone may be confused about this.". It's been
evident for years that those who are perplexed are the ones who imagined
a 'typology'. I believe they've based their assumptions on anecdotal
observations around their own neighbourhoods. OSM is global.

DaveF

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: building typology vs usage

Kevin Kenny-3
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 9:20 AM Dave F via Tagging
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 11/09/2019 14:50, Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> > I said that if it was a church and looks like a church then tag the building as a church even if it now functions as something else.
>
> Buildings don't have a 'type'. There's no 'class', no standard
> architectural style or size. A quick image search proves that.
>
> OSM "is a place for mapping things that are both real and current"
>
> 'building=*' is to indicate its current usage.
>
> /If/ there's an insistence on recording it's original usage, if actually
> *known*,not just observed, then an appropriate *clearly defined* tag
> should be used. Something along the lines of 'original building use".
>
> Frederik suggests "Everyone may be confused about this.". It's been
> evident for years that those who are perplexed are the ones who imagined
> a 'typology'. I believe they've based their assumptions on anecdotal
> observations around their own neighbourhoods. OSM is global.

In the part of the country where I live, the vernacular architecture
is based on an idea of hardline Protestantism that rejected trappings.
The older buildings tend to be symmetric boxes (albeit with
more-or-less steeply pitched roofs; it *snows* here) that give no hint
to their purpose. There's one listed historic building in my township
that in its history served as a school, a social center, and a private
house, and is now subdivided into office space. The only real
indicator of its current purpose is that the front door has a
sandstone lintel reading, 'District School Nº 4'.

Likewise, buildings may reveal obviously their complex history.
Consider the Imam al-Khoei Foundation building in Jamaica, Queens, New
York.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Al-Khoei_Benevolent_Foundation#/media/File:Imam_Al-Khoei_Foundation_8989_Van_Wyck_jeh.jpg
https://www.flickr.com/photos/imjustwalkin/29799850223 .  It's
obviously a converted factory - and just as obviously a mosque. At
what point does the former usage become obscured enough that the
building acquires a new type?

The example that everyone loves to cite is 'building=church'. That
appears to come about because people imagine very likely a building
with a tall steeple or campanile, stained glass windows, perhaps built
in a Gothic or Romanesque style.  But a couple of centuries ago in
stern, Calvinist, North America, churches were plain affairs, with no
stained glass, no iconography, not even a cross atop the steeple:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/steveguttman/2814490383 is fairly
typical of a church of the denomination and period. Is that obviously
of the "church" type?  If so, can you say what features in particular
distinguish it from
https://www.oldhousedreams.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/10-21-Haskell.jpg,
which is pretty typical of a primary school of the same period? Many
of these buildings also started out their lives as government
buildings - the "meetinghouse" of a village would have been its seat
of government as well as its church, in an era before the separation
of church and state was a familiar idea. Meetinghouses were often even
plainer than the examples that I've given so far.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Exterior,_Sandown_Meetinghouse.jpg
was in fact the town's meetinghouse, simultaneously its place of
worship and seat of government, but from the exterior could just have
easily have been a workshop, a school, or a boardinghouse.

If you have a high-Gothic building with twin campaniles, a magnificent
rose window, and similar trappings, that's now a banquet hall or has
been subdivided into flats, go ahead and tag it as "building=church"
if you like. I really don't care. But don't expect that every building
will fit an imagined typology. Frederik and others have told me
repeatedly, "if it still looks like a church, tag it building=church,
if it still looks like a school, tag it building=school, and so on."
But that doesn't inform me about the historic buildings that I'm most
interested in tagging. For the most part their history is complicated,
and their appearance is either likewise complicated, or else
undistinguished. What does a church, or a school, or a government
building, look like?

--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: building typology vs usage

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
I certainly recall reading about this in the wiki, but I agree that in
common use, the building=* tag appears to be used mostly for the
current function, rather than specifying a certain form.

The most common values of building= are:

0) yes (non-specific)
1) =house - both a structural form and a function (residential)
2) =residential - function, not really a specific form of building
3) =garage - function and form
4) =apartments - function (multi-family residential)
5) =detacted - synonym for house but more specific
6) =hut - form of construction (crude/simple)
7) =industrial - function
8) =shed - form but also function ("used as storage or workshop")
9) =roof - form
10) =terrace - form but also function (residential)
11) =school - function mainly
12) =garages - form and function
13) =construction - lifecycle state
14) =retail - mainly function, because the form of retail buildings varies
15) =greenhouse - form = function here
16) =barn - form=function
17) =farm_auxiliary - function (no particular form, and this is only
the general function)
18) =church - claimed to be a form?
19) =warehouse - function (but usually has the same general form)
20) =service - function

Often the "form follows function" as they say, but it looks like
tagging the function of a building is as common as tagging the form.

- Joseph

On 9/13/19, Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 11/09/2019 14:50, Paul Allen wrote:
>>
>> I said that if it was a church and looks like a church then tag the
>> building as a church even if it now functions as something else.
>
> Buildings don't have a 'type'. There's no 'class', no standard
> architectural style or size. A quick image search proves that.
>
> OSM "is a place for mapping things that are both real and current"
>
> 'building=*' is to indicate its current usage.
>
> /If/ there's an insistence on recording it's original usage, if actually
> *known*,not just observed, then an appropriate *clearly defined* tag
> should be used. Something along the lines of 'original building use".
>
> Frederik suggests "Everyone may be confused about this.". It's been
> evident for years that those who are perplexed are the ones who imagined
> a 'typology'. I believe they've based their assumptions on anecdotal
> observations around their own neighbourhoods. OSM is global.
>
> DaveF
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: building typology vs usage

Wolfgang Zenker
* Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> [190913 16:45]:
> I certainly recall reading about this in the wiki, but I agree that in
> common use, the building=* tag appears to be used mostly for the
> current function, rather than specifying a certain form.

That would be kind of redundant, wouldn't it? We already use other tags
for the current function of a building, so building=* is mostly useful
when the building does look like it was built for some other function
than it's current one.

Wolfgang
( lyx @ osm )

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: building typology vs usage

Tagging mailing list
On 13/09/2019 16:14, Wolfgang Zenker wrote:

That would be kind of redundant, wouldn't it? We already use other tags
for the current function of a building,
I'm repeating much of my of my previous comment, but no, the schema which hijacked building=* to represent the original historical function of a building never took off*. The vast majority of contributors use it for it's current purpose. OSM isn't for the mapping of redundant historical information. 

 so building=* is mostly useful
when the uilding does look like it was built for some other function
than it's current one.

How do you know what it was originally used for just from your interpretation of what a building of a certain function should look like? It's just guesswork. How does tagging this perception add to, or improve the quality of the OSM database?

"OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both real and current"

*building:use = 628 167
building!=yes  = 65 221 930

DaveF


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: building typology vs usage

Wolfgang Zenker
* Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]> [190913 21:37]:
> On 13/09/2019 16:14, Wolfgang Zenker wrote:
>> That would be kind of redundant, wouldn't it? We already use other tags
>> for the current function of a building,

> I'm repeating much of my of my previous comment, but no, the schema
> which hijacked building=* to represent the original historical function
> of a building never took off*. The vast majority of contributors use it
> for it's current purpose. OSM isn't for the mapping of redundant
> historical information.

Well, I don't know of any hijacking. This thread is the first time I
have seen people suggesting to tag the current function only in the
building=* tag. But admittedly I'm only active in OSM since 2008, so
that might have happened before that or I might have overlooked it.

>> so building=* is mostly useful
>> when the uilding does look like it was built for some other function
>> than it's current one.

> How do you know what it was originally used for just from your
> interpretation of what a building of a certain function should look
> like? It's just guesswork. How does tagging this perception add to, or
> improve the quality of the OSM database?

I don't care about the buildings original function but about what it
looks like. That might or might not match its original and/or current
function. And if it looks like a run-of-the-mill nothing-special any-
purpose-at-all type of building I tag it as building=yes.

> "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both /real and
> current/"

I agree. I recently mapped https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/722948688
"Howard School" in rural Montana. It is a historic building originally
built as a public school, looks like a fine specimen of a schoolhouse of
it's era, has a prominent sign saying "Howard School" on the front side
and so I tagged it "building=school" even when it has not been used as a
school since 1947 but is used since for community gatherings. So I also
mapped it's current function by adding amenity=community_centre.

Of course different mappers have different opinions about what would be
the best way to tag something, but I don't see this as a weakness but a
strength of OSM. By discussing what we individually think is best and
learning from each other we collectively will arrive at better tagging
by all over time.

Wolfgang
( lyx @ osm )

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: building typology vs usage

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list



13 Sep 2019, 21:37 by [hidden email]:
On 13/09/2019 16:14, Wolfgang Zenker wrote:


That would be kind of redundant, wouldn't it? We already use other tags
for the current function of a building,
I'm repeating much of my of my previous comment, but no, the schema which hijacked building=* to represent the original historical function of a building never took off*. The vast majority of contributors use it for it's current purpose. OSM isn't for the mapping of redundant historical information. 
(...)
*building:use = 628 167
building!=yes  = 65 221 930
That is because in vast majority 
current use is the same as suggested
by how building looks like.

I also often tag building=* about its
structure without tagging building:use

Note also that building tag is not about
historical data.

Industrial buildings with fast food
inside is building=industrial

Remodeled industrial building
that lost indicators of its original
use is not building=industrial

-+--
Btw, can you link evidence that
building tag was originally for
current use, not for current appearance?


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: building typology vs usage

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
Am Fr., 13. Sept. 2019 um 15:20 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging <[hidden email]>:
On 11/09/2019 14:50, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> I said that if it was a church and looks like a church then tag the building as a church even if it now functions as something else.

Buildings don't have a 'type'. There's no 'class', no standard
architectural style or size. A quick image search proves that.


maybe you should extend your search, and go beyond images ;-)

The typology of buildings is for example a subject in architectural studies at the university ("Gebäudekunde"). You will find tens of thousands of books about building typology (usually each dealing with only a narrow topic, e.g. hotels, hospitals, office buildings, production buildings, specific types of apartment buildings, specific military buildings, etc.)

A supermarket, prison church or townhall will typically by recognizable as such (with the exception of those that are built on purpose to not stand out), as will a hotel, an office or a residential building. Sure, you do not need an office building to set up an office, but this doesn't mean there aren't office buildings.

buildings do have a type, but of course you're right, if you look at a very generic type like "residential" you will find all kind of dwellings and you won't recognize a common style or type. To recognize similarities, you'd have to go into more detail, e.g. terraced houses (that's clearly a kind of residential building type, with usually one unit per entrance (may be split now), a narrow garden to the back (usually), etc.).


OSM "is a place for mapping things that are both real and current"

'building=*' is to indicate its current usage.



no, its current building type.

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
123