Mapping a building that's two connected separate buildings

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Mapping a building that's two connected separate buildings

Mark Goodge
I was looking at tidying up a few things around my local area, and came
across this:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.08855/-1.94195

What you can see there is a building labelled "Evesham Hotel" (which is
correct), and, just to the south-west of it, another, unlabelled building.

However, look at the aerial view (eg, via the edit feature, although
Google Maps will do just as well), and it's clear that there is a link
building connecting the two (something which I can confirm from local
knowledge):

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/52.08855/-1.94195

(There's also an unmapped extension to the bottom left building, but
that's another matter).

That's because, many years ago when the manor house was converted to a
hotel, the owners expanded the hotel by building the link to the
adjacent building so that it's all one building internally (more of the
accommodation is in the bottom left building, the original manor house
is mostly reception, function and dining rooms and associated non-public
areas such as kitchens and offices).

So, how should this be mapped? Should the entire hotel, covering both
original buildings and the later link building, be mapped as a single
polygon? Or should they be mapped as three adjacent, but separate,
polygons? Is there a standard way of approaching situations like this?

Mark

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mapping a building that's two connected separate buildings

Great Britain mailing list
It sounds like three connected buildings,
but one building with three building:part
areas also would be acceptable


12 paź 2020, 18:52 od [hidden email]:
I was looking at tidying up a few things around my local area, and came across this:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.08855/-1.94195

What you can see there is a building labelled "Evesham Hotel" (which is correct), and, just to the south-west of it, another, unlabelled building.

However, look at the aerial view (eg, via the edit feature, although Google Maps will do just as well), and it's clear that there is a link building connecting the two (something which I can confirm from local knowledge):

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/52.08855/-1.94195

(There's also an unmapped extension to the bottom left building, but that's another matter).

That's because, many years ago when the manor house was converted to a hotel, the owners expanded the hotel by building the link to the adjacent building so that it's all one building internally (more of the accommodation is in the bottom left building, the original manor house is mostly reception, function and dining rooms and associated non-public areas such as kitchens and offices).

So, how should this be mapped? Should the entire hotel, covering both original buildings and the later link building, be mapped as a single polygon? Or should they be mapped as three adjacent, but separate, polygons? Is there a standard way of approaching situations like this?

Mark

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mapping a building that's two connected separate buildings

Jez Nicholson
Ah yes, a bit like when a hospital or school has a 'corridor room' (for lack of a better term) joining two separate buildings. I'd go for three joined buildings myself.

And that newer building has been extended a bit more hasn't it? That part I would merge with the existing building.

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 5:56 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB <[hidden email]> wrote:
It sounds like three connected buildings,
but one building with three building:part
areas also would be acceptable


12 paź 2020, 18:52 od [hidden email]:
I was looking at tidying up a few things around my local area, and came across this:


What you can see there is a building labelled "Evesham Hotel" (which is correct), and, just to the south-west of it, another, unlabelled building.

However, look at the aerial view (eg, via the edit feature, although Google Maps will do just as well), and it's clear that there is a link building connecting the two (something which I can confirm from local knowledge):


(There's also an unmapped extension to the bottom left building, but that's another matter).

That's because, many years ago when the manor house was converted to a hotel, the owners expanded the hotel by building the link to the adjacent building so that it's all one building internally (more of the accommodation is in the bottom left building, the original manor house is mostly reception, function and dining rooms and associated non-public areas such as kitchens and offices).

So, how should this be mapped? Should the entire hotel, covering both original buildings and the later link building, be mapped as a single polygon? Or should they be mapped as three adjacent, but separate, polygons? Is there a standard way of approaching situations like this?

Mark

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mapping a building that's two connected separate buildings

Alan Mackie


On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 18:58, Jez Nicholson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ah yes, a bit like when a hospital or school has a 'corridor room' (for lack of a better term) joining two separate buildings. I'd go for three joined buildings myself.

And that newer building has been extended a bit more hasn't it? That part I would merge with the existing building.


I'd probably map as three joined building and transfer the hotel tags to a polygon that surrounds buildings, parking and grounds.

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 5:56 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB <[hidden email]> wrote:
It sounds like three connected buildings,
but one building with three building:part
areas also would be acceptable


12 paź 2020, 18:52 od [hidden email]:
I was looking at tidying up a few things around my local area, and came across this:


What you can see there is a building labelled "Evesham Hotel" (which is correct), and, just to the south-west of it, another, unlabelled building.

However, look at the aerial view (eg, via the edit feature, although Google Maps will do just as well), and it's clear that there is a link building connecting the two (something which I can confirm from local knowledge):


(There's also an unmapped extension to the bottom left building, but that's another matter).

That's because, many years ago when the manor house was converted to a hotel, the owners expanded the hotel by building the link to the adjacent building so that it's all one building internally (more of the accommodation is in the bottom left building, the original manor house is mostly reception, function and dining rooms and associated non-public areas such as kitchens and offices).

So, how should this be mapped? Should the entire hotel, covering both original buildings and the later link building, be mapped as a single polygon? Or should they be mapped as three adjacent, but separate, polygons? Is there a standard way of approaching situations like this?

Mark

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mapping a building that's two connected separate buildings

Cj Malone-2
In reply to this post by Mark Goodge
You could also consider at Simple 3D buildings [1], in which case I
think you'd have 1 building around the entire footprint and 3
building:parts.

Cj

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_buildings



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb