Tagging buildings that people work in

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Tagging buildings that people work in

ET Commands
In the course of my mapping I sometimes encounter buildings that I know
people work in, but I don't know what kind of business is being
conducted in the building.  These buildings could contain offices, or
medical facilities, or factories, or warehouses, or retail, or just
about anything else, other than storage buildings or abandoned buildings
or something like that, where people are not normally present.  (Of
course this is somewhat subjective, I realize.)  To distinguish these
buildings from the ones that are tagged with "building=yes" I like to
use a different tag.  I have been using "building=occupied" for lack of
a better tag.  This tag, of course, is meant to be temporary until
someone determines the proper nature of the use of the building.  In the
meantime, this helps to distinguish "occupied" buildings on maps from
generic ones.  What do you think?

Mark


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

Re: Tagging buildings that people work in

marc marc
Le 23.05.19 à 18:57, ET Commands a écrit :
> building=occupied

building=* is about what the building look like
a industrial-look building with a residential use, is still a
industrial-look and is mapped with :
building=industrial building:use=residential

following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better
yes can be improved when you'll known that's the current use,
if it not the same as what is excepted for this building look
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Tagging buildings that people work in

Warin
On 24/05/19 03:05, marc marc wrote:
> Le 23.05.19 à 18:57, ET Commands a écrit :
>> building=occupied

Homes and apartments are also 'occupied'. So that is not what you are after.

Humm .. 'productive'???


> building=* is about what the building look like
> a industrial-look building with a residential use, is still a
> industrial-look and is mapped with :
> building=industrial building:use=residential
>
> following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better
> yes can be improved when you'll known that's the current use,
> if it not the same as what is excepted for this building look

But the mapper says the use cannot be determined by them as yet. Possibly this is a life cycle aspect?

building:activity=occupied/productive where occupied is for living and productive is for 'in operation of some productive effort'???


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

Re: Tagging buildings that people work in

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by marc marc
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:07 PM marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
> following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better
> yes can be improved when you'll known that's the current use,
> if it not the same as what is excepted for this building look

I'm even fine with 'building=yes note=*'. A data consumer isn't likely
to be able to do much with any invented tagging for the partial
information - a note is about as good as any kind of structured data
here.

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

Re: Tagging buildings that people work in

Warin
On 24/05/19 10:24, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:07 PM marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better
>> yes can be improved when you'll known that's the current use,
>> if it not the same as what is excepted for this building look
> I'm even fine with 'building=yes note=*'. A data consumer isn't likely
> to be able to do much with any invented tagging for the partial
> information - a note is about as good as any kind of structured data
> here.

Good idea - use of the tag note=* should attract attention of other mappers and they might be able to improve the tagging.


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

Re: Tagging buildings that people work in

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3



24 May 2019, 02:24 by [hidden email]:
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:07 PM marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better
yes can be improved when you'll known that's the current use,
if it not the same as what is excepted for this building look

I'm even fine with 'building=yes note=*'. A data consumer isn't likely
to be able to do much with any invented tagging for the partial
information - a note is about as good as any kind of structured data
here.
And may be even better as some tools that detect building=yes and help in
filling more detailed data would not process this new building value
(for example StreetComplete)


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

Re: Tagging buildings that people work in

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by marc marc


sent from a phone

> On 23. May 2019, at 19:05, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better
> yes can be improved when you'll known that's the current use,
> if it not the same as what is excepted for this building look


+1, seems to reflect the amount of knowledge.
The combination of building=* with building:use=no might be interesting as well

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

Re: Tagging buildings that people work in

bkil
I can see what maintenance burden this notation could bring, but I would need more information to see what we could gain from it.

landuse=* seemed appropriate for most use cases I have encountered. Why do we need to tag this on a building resolution?

What data consumers did you have in mind?

What common interest does this annotation serve?

What is the verification criteria? Do I need to station next to the building in working hours for a given amount of time and declare it occupied if I see any person entering or leaving, and mark it unoccupied otherwise? Or is it enough if I see indirect indications, such as open windows (what is they are motorized and remote controlled), lighting (some leave it always on for security)?

Is it enough if I see a resident through the window? How do I know if the person is not merely a guard or an intermittent maintenance personal?

If a storage building complex is only occupied by a guard (supervised=* / surveillance:type=guard), do you consider it occupied?

Do you consider weekend houses occupied if they are only occupied intermittently or even seasonally? How do I verify this?

Note that we usually do not add fixme kind of tagging for the sole purpose of marking the absence of regular information, as by definition, a blank map is missing an infinite amount of information and we would definitely not like to store so many fixme's.

Although I acknowledge it is sometimes easy to distinguish abandoned buildings, especially if it is missing furniture, doors or windows, but we have life cycles for that.

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:40 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:


sent from a phone

> On 23. May 2019, at 19:05, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better
> yes can be improved when you'll known that's the current use,
> if it not the same as what is excepted for this building look


+1, seems to reflect the amount of knowledge.
The combination of building=* with building:use=no might be interesting as well

Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
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: Tagging buildings that people work in

bkil
By the way, don't get me wrong, it is a perfectly valid desire to tag these. $SUBJECT has occurred to me as well in the past. In such cases, I looked for the full address, other text on mailboxes, on the building itself, on the fence and in WLAN and PAN in the air and tried to research these on the net. Based on the result, I can usually add a few POI's or companies there and even adjust the surrounding landuse. If nothing turns up, it is probably not a building of public interest.

You might also consider asking a resident, although if this is the only way to verify, it may not scale well on the long term and it is prone to change.

I consider this a constructive alternative approach to recommending mass tagging of "something is here but I don't know what".

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 8:34 PM bkil <bkil.hu+[hidden email]> wrote:
I can see what maintenance burden this notation could bring, but I would need more information to see what we could gain from it.

landuse=* seemed appropriate for most use cases I have encountered. Why do we need to tag this on a building resolution?

What data consumers did you have in mind?

What common interest does this annotation serve?

What is the verification criteria? Do I need to station next to the building in working hours for a given amount of time and declare it occupied if I see any person entering or leaving, and mark it unoccupied otherwise? Or is it enough if I see indirect indications, such as open windows (what is they are motorized and remote controlled), lighting (some leave it always on for security)?

Is it enough if I see a resident through the window? How do I know if the person is not merely a guard or an intermittent maintenance personal?

If a storage building complex is only occupied by a guard (supervised=* / surveillance:type=guard), do you consider it occupied?

Do you consider weekend houses occupied if they are only occupied intermittently or even seasonally? How do I verify this?

Note that we usually do not add fixme kind of tagging for the sole purpose of marking the absence of regular information, as by definition, a blank map is missing an infinite amount of information and we would definitely not like to store so many fixme's.

Although I acknowledge it is sometimes easy to distinguish abandoned buildings, especially if it is missing furniture, doors or windows, but we have life cycles for that.

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:40 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:


sent from a phone

> On 23. May 2019, at 19:05, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better
> yes can be improved when you'll known that's the current use,
> if it not the same as what is excepted for this building look


+1, seems to reflect the amount of knowledge.
The combination of building=* with building:use=no might be interesting as well

Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
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: Tagging buildings that people work in

Paul Allen
On Sun, 26 May 2019 at 10:51, bkil <bkil.hu+[hidden email]> wrote:
By the way, don't get me wrong, it is a perfectly valid desire to tag these. $SUBJECT has occurred to me as well in the past. In such cases, I looked for the full address, other text on mailboxes, on the building , on the fence and in WLAN and PAN in the air and tried to research these on the net. Based on the result, I can usually add a few POI's or companies there and even adjust the surrounding landuse. If nothing turns up, it is probably not a building of public interest.

My approach is that if it's not obvious, I don't tag it.  Because there could be a reason it's not
obvious.  That reason being they don't want the general public to know they operate at that
location.

For example, a one-man-and-a-dog company may operate from home.  It's the correspondence
address, it's listed with the appropriate authority as a company address, but they don't want
people turning up at their door because it's not the kind of business where they interact with
customers/clients/whatever.  So address details only (house name/number, etc.), not company
name.

We need to be wary of the EU's GDPR.  The company name for small businesses may be
a person's name: "Fred Bloggs, Accountant."  You may now be telling people where Fred Bloggs
lives if he works from home.  Not a problem if there's a sign outside saying "Fred Bloggs,
Accountant."   Probably not a problem if he has a web page giving his address.  More of a problem
if you have to ferret the information out.  A big problem if you get the information from the WLAN.

Bottom line: if a company makes it clear that they operate at a given location then we can map it.
If they do not make it clear they operate at that location then we shouldn't map it.

--
Paul


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

Re: Tagging buildings that people work in

ET Commands
In reply to this post by ET Commands

> Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 17:05:14 +0000
> From: marc marc <[hidden email]>
> To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
>
> Le 23.05.19 à 18:57, ET Commands a écrit :
>> building=occupied
> building=* is about what the building look like
> a industrial-look building with a residential use, is still a
> industrial-look and is mapped with :
> building=industrial building:use=residential
>
> following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better

[...]


I like that.

Mark



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

Re: Tagging buildings that people work in

ET Commands
In reply to this post by ET Commands

> Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 20:24:54 -0400
> From: Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:07 PM marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better
>> yes can be improved when you'll known that's the current use,
>> if it not the same as what is excepted for this building look
> I'm even fine with 'building=yes note=*'. A data consumer isn't likely
> to be able to do much with any invented tagging for the partial
> information - a note is about as good as any kind of structured data
> here.

But the invented tagging is easy to symbolize on a map, whereas the note
could have to do with something totally unrelated to the use of the
building.

Mark




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

Re: Tagging buildings that people work in

ET Commands
In reply to this post by ET Commands

> Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 20:34:52 +0200
> From: bkil <[hidden email]>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
>
> I can see what maintenance burden this notation could bring, but I would
> need more information to see what we could gain from it.
>
> landuse=* seemed appropriate for most use cases I have encountered. Why do
> we need to tag this on a building resolution?


Because landuse is for the entire property a building sits on, not the
building itself.

>
> What data consumers did you have in mind?


Mapmakers.

>
> What common interest does this annotation serve?


It allows you to symbolize "occupied" buildings differently from
"unoccupied" ones.

>
> What is the verification criteria? Do I need to station next to the
> building in working hours for a given amount of time and declare it
> occupied if I see any person entering or leaving, and mark it unoccupied
> otherwise? Or is it enough if I see indirect indications, such as open
> windows (what is they are motorized and remote controlled), lighting (some
> leave it always on for security)?
>
> Is it enough if I see a resident through the window? How do I know if the
> person is not merely a guard or an intermittent maintenance personal?


My personal criteria is not meant to be that exact.  For example, I can
see from an aerial photo a large building surrounded by a large parking
lot.  I can surmise that several or many people work in the building,
but I have no idea what they do there.

>
> If a storage building complex is only occupied by a guard (supervised=* /
> surveillance:type=guard), do you consider it occupied?


No.

>
> Do you consider weekend houses occupied if they are only occupied
> intermittently or even seasonally? How do I verify this?


Note that my question was in reference to buildings people work in, not
live in.

>
> Note that we usually do not add fixme kind of tagging for the sole purpose
> of marking the absence of regular information, as by definition, a blank
> map is missing an infinite amount of information and we would definitely
> not like to store so many fixme's.


I was not advocating the use of fixme's.  Knowing that a building is
"occupied" is having more knowledge than simply knowing that a building
exists.  It is not necessary to know everything about a feature in order
to map it.  OpenStreetMap will never be "complete," because there will
always be more information that can be added to features.

>
> Although I acknowledge it is sometimes easy to distinguish abandoned
> buildings, especially if it is missing furniture, doors or windows, but we
> have life cycles for that.


True.  But abandoned buildings are not the only buildings that people do
not work in.  An example is storage buildings.

[...]

Mark



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

Re: Tagging buildings that people work in

ET Commands
In reply to this post by ET Commands

> Date: Sun, 26 May 2019 12:47:37 +0100
> From: Paul Allen <[hidden email]>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
>
> On Sun, 26 May 2019 at 10:51, bkil <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> By the way, don't get me wrong, it is a perfectly valid desire to tag
>> these. $SUBJECT has occurred to me as well in the past. In such cases, I
>> looked for the full address, other text on mailboxes, on the building , on
>> the fence and in WLAN and PAN in the air and tried to research these on the
>> net. Based on the result, I can usually add a few POI's or companies there
>> and even adjust the surrounding landuse. If nothing turns up, it is
>> probably not a building of public interest.
>>
> My approach is that if it's not obvious, I don't tag it.  Because there
> could be a reason it's not
> obvious.  That reason being they don't want the general public to know they
> operate at that
> location.
>
> For example, a one-man-and-a-dog company may operate from home.  It's the
> correspondence
> address, it's listed with the appropriate authority as a company address,
> but they don't want
> people turning up at their door because it's not the kind of business where
> they interact with
> customers/clients/whatever.  So address details only (house name/number,
> etc.), not company
> name.
>
> We need to be wary of the EU's GDPR.  The company name for small businesses
> may be
> a person's name: "Fred Bloggs, Accountant."  You may now be telling people
> where Fred Bloggs
> lives if he works from home.  Not a problem if there's a sign outside
> saying "Fred Bloggs,
> Accountant."   Probably not a problem if he has a web page giving his
> address.  More of a problem
> if you have to ferret the information out.  A big problem if you get the
> information from the WLAN.
>
> Bottom line: if a company makes it clear that they operate at a given
> location then we can map it.
> If they do not make it clear they operate at that location then we
> shouldn't map it.
>
> --
> Paul


I agree with everything you said, but I'm not considering these types of
situations.  I'm only considering buildings where it's obvious they are
only used as a place of employment, and not a residence.  Mainly I'm
thinking of buildings visible in aerial photos.

Mark



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

Re: Tagging buildings that people work in

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by ET Commands
On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 19:09, ET Commands <[hidden email]> wrote:

My personal criteria is not meant to be that exact.  For example, I can
see from an aerial photo a large building surrounded by a large parking
lot.  I can surmise that several or many people work in the building,
but I have no idea what they do there.

Sorry, but you cannot surmise that people work there.  Even if you do a ground survey,
it may not be possible to make that determination unless you get close enough.

Sure, large office buildings of relatively recent construction tend to have a distinctive style
("Lego plain with large windows").  And they often have a large car park.  But...

England changed its planning rules in 2013 to allow the conversion of office blocks and
industrial buildings into homes without having to apply for planning permission (often
a lengthy and expensive process, with permission frequently being denied).  The outcome,
given the economic downturn, was predictable.  There are a lot of buildings that, using
aerial imagery and your criteria, would be mapped as offices but which are not.


--
Paul


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

Re: Tagging buildings that people work in

ET Commands
In reply to this post by ET Commands

> Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 20:46:28 +0100
> From: Paul Allen <[hidden email]>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
>
> On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 19:09, ET Commands <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> My personal criteria is not meant to be that exact.  For example, I can
>> see from an aerial photo a large building surrounded by a large parking
>> lot.  I can surmise that several or many people work in the building,
>> but I have no idea what they do there.
>>
> Sorry, but you cannot surmise that people work there.  Even if you do a
> ground survey,
> it may not be possible to make that determination unless you get close
> enough.
>
> Sure, large office buildings of relatively recent construction tend to have
> a distinctive style
> ("Lego plain with large windows").  And they often have a large car park.
> But...
>
> England changed its planning rules in 2013 to allow the conversion of
> office blocks and
> industrial buildings into homes without having to apply for planning
> permission (often
> a lengthy and expensive process, with permission frequently being denied).
> The outcome,
> given the economic downturn, was predictable.  There are a lot of buildings
> that, using
> aerial imagery and your criteria, would be mapped as offices but which are
> not.
>
> Reference: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48031661
>
> --
> Paul


Fair enough.  But in the area where I map in the United States, I would
bet that using my criteria I would be correct 95% of the time, if not more.

Mark



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

Re: Tagging buildings that people work in

bkil
The kind of derivative information that you suggest does not add much to the map, hence I don't support your proposal.

On the other hand, if you simply added the area of the parking lot you see next to the building (kind of a factual information), others could draw the same conclusion as you did. At the same time, this would be great help for drivers in finding parking spaces, adding utility to the map compared to "symbolizing things". Note that we prefer that OpenStreetMap contains mostly verifiable facts, not pure inferences. It would be extra helpful if you used a resolution high enough for you to see whether it is fenced off or not (access=*). 

Note that I don't always add even parking lots from aerial imagery to the map without local knowledge, because you can't be certain about what is on the ground. Around here, it is not always easy to tell apart from car retail, parking + residential storage&garages, VAT auction storage lots, marketplaces and whatnot. Historic cities have very limited parking space, and even those are mostly underground - with your inference someone may tag all of these buildings as unoccupied, which is clearly wrong.

Also, currently I see each of your replies as a new message thread, unrelated to one another. Could you please use message threading (I thought that clicking on the 'reply' button would have done the right thing)?
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/message-threading-thunderbird


On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 2:01 AM ET Commands <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 20:46:28 +0100
> From: Paul Allen <[hidden email]>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>       <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
>
> On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 19:09, ET Commands <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> My personal criteria is not meant to be that exact.  For example, I can
>> see from an aerial photo a large building surrounded by a large parking
>> lot.  I can surmise that several or many people work in the building,
>> but I have no idea what they do there.
>>
> Sorry, but you cannot surmise that people work there.  Even if you do a
> ground survey,
> it may not be possible to make that determination unless you get close
> enough.
>
> Sure, large office buildings of relatively recent construction tend to have
> a distinctive style
> ("Lego plain with large windows").  And they often have a large car park.
> But...
>
> England changed its planning rules in 2013 to allow the conversion of
> office blocks and
> industrial buildings into homes without having to apply for planning
> permission (often
> a lengthy and expensive process, with permission frequently being denied).
> The outcome,
> given the economic downturn, was predictable.  There are a lot of buildings
> that, using
> aerial imagery and your criteria, would be mapped as offices but which are
> not.
>
> Reference: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48031661
>
> --
> Paul


Fair enough.  But in the area where I map in the United States, I would
bet that using my criteria I would be correct 95% of the time, if not more.

Mark



_______________________________________________
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: Tagging buildings that people work in

bkil
In reply to this post by ET Commands
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear in formulating the questions, I'll try to rephrase my inquiries again below.

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 8:09 PM ET Commands <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 20:34:52 +0200
> From: bkil
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
>
> landuse=* seemed appropriate for most use cases I have encountered. Why do
> we need to tag this on a building resolution?
Because landuse is for the entire property a building sits on, not the
building itself.


You've described the difference between specifying the high level landuse in an area (that may be even a few blocks large) compared to the proposed micro-mapping on buildings. This is correct, but I would like to know the reason, meaning what advantage would such a resolution carry to the map consumer?

> What data consumers did you have in mind?
Mapmakers.


Being a mapmaker is a profession - they make maps for a given audience, for a given user group or a given task. Specifically, by data consumer we mean a downstream project that offers services based on OSM data, commonly in a slippy-map format, but sometimes aggregating statistics or joining data from various places, providing better insight or an index.

For example, given the height of a building or the number of floors or its colour, there exist applications that can show a 3D map or even generate game scenery from real cities. By adding a proper digital elevation model, you could envision the use of this information for radio antenna link planning as well. Tagging the kind of sports played in a recreation centre or in a bar makes it available for map queries (where is the nearest place I could play pool at?).

It's not a problem if there doesn't exist any data consumers for a new notation and you don't want to implement any either - I'm just curious whether you could come up with a plausible one to be created in the future.

Reading this answer together with the next one makes me feel as if we should map this for the general renderer and "just because we can" (although we probably can't as per my other points), but I hope I'm reading you incorrectly. We could use line laser scanners to reproduce roads to submillimeter accuracy, but we don't do that - instead we take a model of a real life entity and represent it in a way that serves a given real life purpose like pedestrian and automotive navigation. Buildings have all kinds of imperfections (also accumulating with time), but we usually represent them as simple boxes (that mind you is already too detailed to the taste of many).

Another drawback is that Mapnik already has too many colours and symbols by only showing the items of common interest, hence they had to hide a few already. I'd definitely not like to compromise even more items of common interest for occupancy on the general overview maps. I couldn't think of who would look at specialized maps only showing these, but as I've asked previously, please do share.

> What common interest does this annotation serve?
It allows you to symbolize "occupied" buildings differently from
"unoccupied" ones.


For example, people drawing their own back yards and their own garage there does not serve common interest, however if you add a roof (rain cover) that resides in public property where I could stand under if it is raining, it is of common interest.

Another example is mapping your own water tap does not serve common interest, but at the same time mapping a water tap found on the street adds great value, as I could go there and have some water when I'm hiking in the summer when it's hot and I'm thirsty.

Do people want to go inside an unoccupied building to seek shelter? Do people want to see these kind of buildings as an attraction? Do people want to stay away from occupied buildings due to possible danger? Should we search for survivors in occupied buildings after a disaster (not good enough because we should also search in residential buildings)? Does this help mobile cell phone base station planning (although I guest they simply look at their spatial network stats and be done with it)?

In general, I really like features, new tags and micromapping, but please help me out a little here. I'd still need some convincing to see why this would be a useful addition.

If it does not stand on its own as a feature, then as you've mentioned yourself, it's just a placeholder, a kind of FIXME that you expect others to map in more detail for it to be usable. See the answer I've given in the relevant section as to why I view this as a bad thing.

> What is the verification criteria? Do I need to station next to the
My personal criteria is not meant to be that exact.  For example, I can 


You may have a given heuristic in your head right now, but you will need to provide a pseudo-algorithm and document it in detail in the wiki for others to follow. A tagging scheme is only useful if everybody is tagging the same way (or at least in a compatible way).

It also happens with well documented, established tags that people engage in light "tagging wars" - each visiting the same place tags it in a slightly different, but still kind of valid way. Imagine how often this happened if you couldn't give an exact algorithm with your proposal.

> Do you consider weekend houses occupied if they are only occupied
> intermittently or even seasonally? How do I verify this?
Note that my question was in reference to buildings people work in, not
live in.


This goes against the definition most people understand, so even if $SUBJECT could be tagged, a better word should definitely be found to describe the phenomenon:


> Note that we usually do not add fixme kind of tagging for the sole purpose
> of marking the absence of regular information, as by definition, a blank
> map is missing an infinite amount of information and we would definitely
> not like to store so many fixme's.
I was not advocating the use of fixme's.  Knowing that a building is
"occupied" is having more knowledge than simply knowing that a building
exists.

One of the replies given to you has hinted at using note=* (which is for a different concept, leaving an advisory for the next editor, not to mark something as missing) in a fixme=* fashion. See my answer above regarding whether this is of common interest. If it is not, mapping these is equivalent to a fixme - expecting others to add real value to the map because we couldn't.

It is not necessary to know everything about a feature in order
to map it.  OpenStreetMap will never be "complete," because there will
always be more information that can be added to features.


Exactly, and this is why we don't list the kind of information missing from a given feature. We don't add fixme=height, despite the fact that everything that can usually be mapped also has a height, - we simply add height=* when it is known and leave it out otherwise.

True.  But abandoned buildings are not the only buildings that people do
not work in.  An example is storage buildings.


Yes, I have included that too as an example in my last response, but I would still need the reason behind why we would need to map where potential storage buildings are located. Although, I think we could extend landuse to mark areas with mostly storage buildings if this is your real major use case, although you still haven't shared your use case with us.

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

Re: Tagging buildings that people work in

Paul Allen
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 10:09, bkil <bkil.hu+[hidden email]> wrote:

You've described the difference between specifying the high level landuse in an area (that may be even a few blocks large) compared to the proposed micro-mapping on buildings. This is correct, but I would like to know the reason, meaning what advantage would such a resolution carry to the map consumer?

About the only use I can think of is navigation.  Some of us use building=church even when it
is no longer used as a place of worship but has been converted for residential use because it
is recognizable as a church.  As in "Take the first left past the church."   Not that building=church
(without amenity=place_of_worship) is rendered differently from an ordinary building, but at least
the information is there if you use the query tool.  As in "I can see a church, is it that building on the
map?"

I'm not convinced of the utility of this proposal for navigation, though. Too subjective, too likely to
change with time and not very usable.  You see a building but nobody is there.  Is that the one
that is tagged as occupied or not?  Is nobody there because it's a local holiday, or because the
business has gone bust, or because when it was surveyed people were stripping the fittings,
or...?

--
Paul


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

Re: Tagging buildings that people work in

ET Commands
In reply to this post by ET Commands

> Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2019 10:01:13 +0200
> From: bkil <[hidden email]>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in
>
[...]

> Also, currently I see each of your replies as a new message thread,
> unrelated to one another. Could you please use message threading (I thought
> that clicking on the 'reply' button would have done the right thing)?
> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/message-threading-thunderbird


Thanks for pointing me to the Thunderbird support site.

I get my mailing list messages in digest form.  When I want to reply to
a message, I strip out all the other messages from the digest except the
one I'm replying to.  Not sure message threading would help me.

Also, thanks to everyone who took the time to send me their comments
about tagging "occupied" buildings.

Mark



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12