Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

[Andreas Goss]

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:craft%3Djoiner
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:craft%3Dcabinet_maker
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:craft%3Dcarpenter

The problem with that whole carpenter page it that it's wikipedia 
copypasta. And when I wanted to change anything our friend Xxzme wasn't 
too happy...


That said it's probably a bit complicated, because there will be some 
overlapp.






sent from a phone


Am 25.08.2015 um 10:33 schrieb Ruben Maes :

Tuesday 25 August 2015 11:30:33, Warin:

As the post office is called an office I suppose it should go as 
office=post_office:-)
The more I think of a bank the more I think of it is an office.
Carpenter? If I want a repair done .. then it is a service? = office. If I want 
a new chair then a product? = shop. ?


Or craft=carpenter[1].



or maybe joiner / cabinet maker? There might be subtle differences here, in 
Germany the carpenter (Zimmermann) is a profession making mostly structural 
wood work (walls, roofs, stairs etc) while cabinet makers are building and 
repairing wooden furniture and joiners (Bauschreiner/Bautischler) will make 
finishings like claddings (wall/ceiling), handrails, fixed (built in) 
furniture, doors and frames (usually not the structural part). There is some 
overlap and they might do parts of the other profession/specialization as well, 
but you are usually better off with asking someone to do the stuff they are 
specialized in (because they have the right tools and workshop and experience). 
The Schreiner(de) will have much smaller tolerances and will usually produce 
finer finishings while the Zimmermann (de, en:carpenter) will make more rough 
work which will either be visible outdoors or will likely be clad later by 
someone specialized in finer works.

cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




--
__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 26.08.2015 15:16, Chris Hill wrote:
> No, a pub that is closed is simply not open for business until it reopens
> the next day. A pub that is disused is no longer a pub.

What about a pub that is closed for 2 months? What's the limit? Anyway, we
have two points of view:

1) It's still a pub. In that case, use the amenity=pub key with adequate
attributes.

2) It's no more a pub. In that case, just delete the amenity=pub tag.
There's no point in a disused:foo=bar namespace. That's either historical
mapping or hiding from the renderer, both of which are wrong in OSM.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Andy Townsend]

On 27/08/2015 12:15, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
There's no point in a disused:foo=bar namespace. That's either 
historical mapping or hiding from the renderer, both of which are 
wrong in OSM. 


Er, no.  A disused:amenity=pub is something that still exists in its own 
right; it's a building that was a pub, is still a building, is probably 
still usable as a navigational aid and gets rendered on maps that want 
to show that sort of thing:


http://i.imgur.com/lxFc6ds.png

... it just doesn't sell beer.

Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)

PS: That one's since re-opened (hurray!)


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 27.08.2015 13:51, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 27/08/2015 12:15, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
>> There's no point in a disused:foo=bar namespace. That's either historical
>> mapping or hiding from the renderer, both of which are wrong in OSM. 
> 
> Er, no.  A disused:amenity=pub is something that still exists in its own
> right; it's a building that was a pub, is still a building, is probably
> still usable as a navigational aid

That's why the building=* tag stays in place, and you may leave the name
there as well (particularly when it serves as a navigational aid), just drop
the amenity=pub tag.

With disused:amenity=pub you may get in trouble. What if it was a pub at one
time, a nightclub at another time and a restaurant at yet another time?
Maybe it still looks like a nightclub, although it was used as a pub lately.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 14:16 +0100, Chris Hill wrote:
> On 26/08/15 13:44, Dave F. wrote:
> > 
> > A pub that's closed down it's still recognisable as a pub. It's not
> > a 
> > park bench or a multi-storey car park. It's just closed. This
> > should 
> > be described in sub tags.
> > 
> No, a pub that is closed is simply not open for business until it 
> reopens the next day. A pub that is disused is no longer a pub. It
> may 
> become a pub again in the future but for now it is not a pub. The 
> services that a pub provides are no longer available at that place.
> As a 
> pub it has ceased to be. In short: it is an ex-pub.
> 
> To leave a tag that describes it as a pub (when it is not) then add 
> another tag that says it is not a pub is plain daft. Changing it's 
> tagging to show it is no longer a pub, such as disused:amenity=pub is
> distinctly showing that it is no longer a pub even though it might 
> superficially look like one.
> 
> Now I need a beer.
> 
A disused pub, providing it still looks like a pub, is still a useful
navigational feature. Pubs have always been the normal way of giving
directions.
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/PrKK4Y3JBpdF3jg6fnLM1g/photo

Turn right by The White Horse, carry on passed The Old Post Office and
Castle, turn left by the White Lion then left again by The Hawkstone.

What could be simpler?

Phil (trigpoint)


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Georg Feddern]

Am 27.08.2015 um 18:49 schrieb Philip Barnes:

A disused pub, providing it still looks like a pub, is still a useful
navigational feature. Pubs have always been the normal way of giving
directions.
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/PrKK4Y3JBpdF3jg6fnLM1g/photo

Turn right by The White Horse, carry on passed The Old Post Office and
Castle, turn left by the White Lion then left again by The Hawkstone.

What could be simpler?


Well - it is simple.
But what you refer to is the simple _name_  - and that name may be still 
there in OSM if it's still sitting on the wall or sign.

In opposite to the amenity ...

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[geow]

Hi all, thank you for taking the time to discuss my proposition. This has
been a remarkable and quite populated discussion in several ways, but it
doesn’t answer my question: Which criteria should distinct footway from
path?

I think a majority of mappers world wide would agree on this minimum
consensus: 

"highway=footway is mainly a single-use way for pedestrians, whereas
highway=path is a universal tag for multi-use or non specific use ways, from
rural, mountain and wilderness trails to all kinds of transport
infrastructure in the so called developing countries and may be used by any
species of non 4-wheel traffic, including stock, mule, yaks and - yes - in
some countries even by motorcycles/mopeds etc." 

It’s remarkable, that parallel to this discussion,  the main developers of
the standard OpenStreetMap mapnik style has decided to render footway and
path identical.

In the extended discussions to justify the unifying styling in Mapnik, it’s
kind of ironic that @gravitystorm correctly observes the necessity of a
proper distinction path vs footway, as he noted  in reply to

 
:

"As has been said many times already, there are so many different
interpretations of the difference between footway and path that none of them
are useful."

Some of you complained, that redefining popular tags makes no sense.
According to this belief it would be hardly possibly to develope and enhance
any popular tags.
 
Some of you agree, with the present definitions ... well, it is a mess that
should be fixed sooner than later.

So do you have any functional suggestions or enhancements to my proposition
in the OP for a proper classification criteria between footway and path?  

Thanks,
geow





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/highway-footway-Advanced-definition-Distinction-footway-vs-path-tp5851506p5853308.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Bryan Housel]

`highway=footway` implies an access tag `foot=designated`
`highway=path` implies an access tag `foot=yes` (but can certainly be 
overridden)

“designated” is kind of a tricky concept, but it basically means something like:
- there is a sign saying you can walk there
- or something like a sign (trail blaze or map at trailhead or visitor center 
etc)
- or everyone just knows you are supposed to walk there (as in a sidewalk) 
because laws

HTH,
Bryan



> On Aug 27, 2015, at 4:14 PM, geow  wrote:
> 
> So do you have any functional suggestions or enhancements to my proposition
> in the OP for a proper classification criteria between footway and path?  

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 27.08.2015 um 12:13 schrieb Andreas Goss :
> 
> That said it's probably a bit complicated, because there will be some 
> overlapp.


yes, there is clearly overlap, but usually you can go with the auto declaration 
of the business. 

Problem for German speaking people is that even popular web dictionaries give 
you carpenter as a translation for both, Zimmermann and Schreiner/Tischler (and 
don't distinguish between Bautischler and Möbeltischler).

IMHO we should make clear descriptions of the main kind of work a business with 
a given tag should be specialized in, so that we produce useful data. I believe 
we need 3 or 4 different kind of tags here (2 kind of carpenter like 
businesses: carpenters and structural wood engineering).

cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] diplomatic institutions (with tl;dr)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 25.08.2015 um 19:10 schrieb serpens-...@gmx.de:
> 
> And amenity=embassy just way to specific, nobody wants 
> amenity=consulate_general, ameninty=consulate etc.


why not? What is the advantage of using diplomatic instead of amenity as a key? 
Why should we use the same main tag for the ambassador's home and the embassy 
with its offices for the public?

cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 26.08.2015 um 02:09 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> 
> The difference between a building used as a supermarket compared to a 
> department store is the internal fitout, the building remains the same.


not at all, this might be the case in some areas (that I am not aware of) and 
edge cases, but the typical supermarket is 1 storey, in huge cases 2 (and then 
one level is typically electronics, or gardening and other non-food articles 
and tends towards a department store by the selection of products) and doesn't 
have a representative / expensive outside facade, while department stores tend 
to have at least 3 floors, typically 4 and more, and do have to have a 
representative outside, so no, these are not the same kind of buildings.

Do you have any real example of a supermarket becoming a department store or 
vice versa?


cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[John Willis]

Footway is a constructed or engineered way, dedicated and built to a grade 
where foot traffic should expect an easy walk. This might make other traffic 
passage easier as well ( bikes), but engineered with pedestrians in mind.

Path is a cleared area with minimal-to-no construction to create the surface, 
or uses repurposed ways/areas that are no longer suitable for 4 wheel traffic 
(and abandoned road, track, or brownfield). The lack of considerate engineering 
means the way can be used by any non 4-wheel traffic because it was not 
engineered at a grade to specifically be a footpath.

Before they change path to mimic footpath, can we at least have a "trail" way 
then? 
This is getting ridiculous. 

This change also means the retagging of all paths in Japan, as path is defined 
as a trail. 
But thanks to a data import a long time ago using path, almost all paths need 
to be re tagged as tracks anyways (as they are tracks dedicated to 4 wheel 
(farming) vehicles.



Javbw

> On Aug 28, 2015, at 5:14 AM, geow  wrote:
> 
> So do you have any functional suggestions or enhancements to my proposition
> in the OP for a proper classification criteria between footway and path?  
> 
> Thanks,
> geow

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Ilpo Järvinen]

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, John Willis wrote:

> Footway is a constructed or engineered way, dedicated and built to a 
> grade where foot traffic should expect an easy walk. This might make 
> other traffic passage easier as well ( bikes), but engineered with 
> pedestrians in mind.
> 
> Path is a cleared area with minimal-to-no construction to create the 
> surface, or uses repurposed ways/areas that are no longer suitable for 4 
> wheel traffic (and abandoned road, track, or brownfield). The lack of 
> considerate engineering means the way can be used by any non 4-wheel 
> traffic because it was not engineered at a grade to specifically be a 
> footpath.
>
> Before they change path to mimic footpath, 

?? The rendering change has already been implemented.

> can we at least have a "trail" way then?  
> This is getting ridiculous. 

Just start using it then (highway=trail seems the most reasonable one, 
matching well, and it's even semi-documented ATM) and see how other 
mappers who consider this distinction important follow. Unfortunately that 
obviously costs you the rendering on the default mapnik map but that's 
small price to pay for this useful distinction, IMHO. In the end, if we 
get there, highway=path mess is hopefully less convoluted and easier for 
everyone really agree that the remaining ones are pretty much equal to 
=footway.

I think it would also be useful to also document such "minimal" 
constructions into wiki too (e.g. erosion prevention measures). I think 
any language ambiguity related to "trail" can be solved with proper 
documentation. And also document sane default access assumptions.

> This change also means the retagging of all paths in Japan, as path is 
> defined as a trail. 

Not just Japan, there are other places too which have maintained this 
distinction rather consistently except for perhaps those few ways which 
come from shared cycleway presets (that will create 
highway=path+foot=designated+bicycle=designated, which I won't oppose 
even a little, btw, when there's a real trail tag for those who care 
about the distinction).


-- 
 i.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

[John Willis]

The Montgomery ward's department store in my old hometown was turned into a 
Walmart (2 stories) but most department stores in California are 1-2 floors 
(with most targets and walmarts being 1 story).  Most supermarkets are one. 
Size is the only difference in their construction, and often near each other, 
built by the same construction companies, paid by the same landowners. 

I can totally see that in some countries (and especially for certain brands) 
there would be easily defined building types, but All of them are retail 
buildings. They should at least be called retail buildings. To many people, the 
brand logo out front and the color choice of the paint will signal that it is a 
market or a dept store far beyond it's architecture, in most cases. 

 The difference between a large drug store, a supermarket, a department store, 
and a DIY store in rural Japan is almost non-existent (Besia, Besia fashion, 
Sekichu, Kawachi stores). Interestingly, most electronics shops are "on stilts" 
- first floor is parking, second floor is is the main floor. In Tokyo, 
everything is crammed into the bottom floors of multi-story buildings, with the 
supermarkets in the basements of large buildings or malls - there are very few 
dedicated buildings to a single store if it is large - especially supermarkets. 
They end up being leaseholders in the basement of a large residential or 
business office building, or in the basement of large department stores or 
malls. The rest of the city is a sea of mixed use little tiny house sized 
buildings (shop on the bottom, house up top) for which, AFAIK, we still do not 
have a proper mixed-use tag (urban nor rural) 

Javbw 

> On Aug 28, 2015, at 6:29 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>> Am 26.08.2015 um 02:09 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>> 
>> The difference between a building used as a supermarket compared to a 
>> department store is the internal fitout, the building remains the same.
> 
> 
> not at all, this might be the case in some areas (that I am not aware of) and 
> edge cases, but the typical supermarket is 1 storey, in huge cases 2 (and 
> then one level is typically electronics, or gardening and other non-food 
> articles and tends towards a department store by the selection of products) 
> and doesn't have a representative / expensive outside facade, while 
> department stores tend to have at least 3 floors, typically 4 and more, and 
> do have to have a representative outside, so no, these are not the same kind 
> of buildings.
> 
> Do you have any real example of a supermarket becoming a department store or 
> vice versa?
> 
> 
> cheers 
> Martin 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

[Paul Norman]

On 8/27/2015 2:29 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

not at all, this might be the case in some areas (that I am not aware of) and 
edge cases, but the typical supermarket is 1 storey, in huge cases 2 (and then 
one level is typically electronics, or gardening and other non-food articles 
and tends towards a department store by the selection of products) and doesn't 
have a representative / expensive outside facade, while department stores tend 
to have at least 3 floors, typically 4 and more, and do have to have a 
representative outside, so no, these are not the same kind of buildings.



This is not generally true, although it might be where you are. A 
typical department store here is one or two floors inside, with an 
outside somewhat like this: 
https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7057/6842722906_1b8e4cc101_z.jpg, or maybe 
on the fancier end, 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/darrellinyvr/6988854497/. This is the same 
as in Ontario, and across much of the US where I have traveled. The only 
3+ floor locations that come to mind are some old stores downtown.


Meanwhile, with moving ramps capable of taking carts, some new 
supermarkets are on an elevated level.



Do you have any real example of a supermarket becoming a department store or 
vice versa?
Yes - local to me, the Woodward's location used to be a department 
store, and has been a Zeller's (discount retail), parts of a Safeway 
(supermarket), fitness center, and now has a Walmart moving into part of it.


You should not assume that the architecture you are familiar with is 
common across the world.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

[John Willis]

I forgot to mention, as most supermarkets are part of large shopping centres 
(shops ringing a parking lot). the building is built, and the market or 
whatever is merely a leaseholder.  Many are purpose built inside to be a 
certain one, but the architecture matches all the other (smaller) shops in the 
shopping centre. This means the leaseholder has very little say in the 
architecture choice.  Most of the older supermarkets I know are newer 
leaseholders in old locations in older centres with distinct styling - without 
the signs on the front, you couldn't know where one shop stopped and the other 
began. 

Javbw

> On Aug 28, 2015, at 7:20 AM, John Willis  wrote:
> 
> To many people, the brand logo out front and the color choice of the paint 
> will signal that it is a market or a dept store far beyond it's architecture, 
> in most cases. 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 28.08.2015 um 00:20 schrieb John Willis :
> 
> Interestingly, most electronics shops are "on stilts" - first floor is 
> parking, second floor is is the main floor. In Tokyo, everything is crammed 
> into the bottom floors of multi-story buildings, with the supermarkets in the 
> basements of large buildings or malls


I would bet both of them could be described with distinctive building types. 
It's pointless to call them building=retail because you can already see it from 
the building user (shop tag) that it's a retail building.


cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 28.08.2015 um 00:22 schrieb Paul Norman :
> 
> This is not generally true, although it might be where you are. A typical 
> department store here is one or two floors inside, with an outside somewhat 
> like this: https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7057/6842722906_1b8e4cc101_z.jpg, or 
> maybe on the fancier end, 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/darrellinyvr/6988854497/.


I'm sorry for you ;-)


> This is the same as in Ontario, and across much of the US where I have 
> traveled. The only 3+ floor locations that come to mind are some old stores 
> downtown.


yes, I had some fear that this was indeed the case in North America, hence my 
first sentence (referring to areas). I guess I had these old store locations 
downtown in mind (typical for Europe as well).

Not sure what would be the best description for your typical building types 
(still, "retail" without any additional information seems very generic), likely 
"supermarket" and department store aren't ;-)

cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 28.08.2015 um 00:12 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen :
> 
> I think 
> any language ambiguity related to "trail" can be solved with proper 
> documentation. And also document sane default access assumptions.


highway=path was documented from the beginning and default access assumptions 
have been given. It didn't help apparently ;-)
Good luck.

My suggestion is to not assume any access defaults but rather explicitly tag 
everything, and surface as well. Everything you assume will be questioned and 
taken from you in a few years ;-) what is there explicitly will likely remain...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

[Warin]

On 28/08/2015 9:21 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


Am 28.08.2015 um 00:20 schrieb John Willis :

Interestingly, most electronics shops are "on stilts" - first floor is parking, 
second floor is is the main floor. In Tokyo, everything is crammed into the bottom floors 
of multi-story buildings, with the supermarkets in the basements of large buildings or 
malls


I would bet both of them could be described with distinctive building types. 
It's pointless to call them building=retail because you can already see it from 
the building user (shop tag) that it's a retail building.





Here a building=retail could be a convenience store, a grocer, a baker ...
the building style remains the same, the occupying business can and does change 
over time. They may even be unoccupied for some time.
Thus building=retail is a very good tag.
Much like building=church. Even when not used as a church .. they are readily 
recognise as a church building.


---
A building=residential describes may styles of buildings, the style of a 
residence in the tropics is much different to that in colder climates.
So too there is a wide variety of retail buildings. Both are recognisable by 
their function.

If you want to further describe them ... fine .. develop sub tags, don't change 
the primary tag though.
for example
building=residence
residence=queenslander  ... 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenslander_%28architecture%29




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 28.08.2015 um 01:47 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> 
> building=residence
> residence=queenslander  ...


looks like a "detached_house", maybe a "villa" in some occasions? I agree that 
Queenslander is very specific and suitable for a sub-tag, but wouldn't mind if 
someone put it in the main building tag.

cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

[Warin]

On 28/08/2015 9:33 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


Am 28.08.2015 um 00:22 schrieb Paul Norman :

This is not generally true, although it might be where you are. A typical 
department store here is one or two floors inside, with an outside somewhat 
like this: https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7057/6842722906_1b8e4cc101_z.jpg, or 
maybe on the fancier end, 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/darrellinyvr/6988854497/.


I'm sorry for you ;-)



This is the same as in Ontario, and across much of the US where I have 
traveled. The only 3+ floor locations that come to mind are some old stores 
downtown.


There are existing tags to describe the number of floors in a building. If that 
is the only difference.

I know of one 'department store' building that is now an educational college. 
The exterior of the building still reflects the origin of being a retail 
building.



yes, I had some fear that this was indeed the case in North America, hence my 
first sentence (referring to areas). I guess I had these old store locations 
downtown in mind (typical for Europe as well).

Not sure what would be the best description for your typical building types (still, 
"retail" without any additional information seems very generic), likely 
"supermarket" and department store aren't ;-)


Nothing wrong with being generic, highway=residential covers a lot of different 
looking roads around the world.
OSM can use existing sub tags to further describe them if required.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

[Warin]

On 28/08/2015 9:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


Am 28.08.2015 um 00:12 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen :

I think
any language ambiguity related to "trail" can be solved with proper
documentation. And also document sane default access assumptions.


highway=path was documented from the beginning and default access assumptions 
have been given. It didn't help apparently ;-)
Good luck.


As highway=path could be sub tagged to be the same as highway=footway

It was simply a lazy way of tagging a 'footway' with some sub tags rather than 
actually using the existing tags.



My suggestion is to not assume any access defaults but rather explicitly tag 
everything, and surface as well. Everything you assume will be questioned and 
taken from you in a few years ;-) what is there explicitly will likely remain...
___


Unless highway=trail can be made exclusive of any other tag (including their 
sub tags) then it will only add to confusion and abuse of its use.
As 'footway' can be sub tagged to any thing I can conceive of at a 'trail' I 
see little hope of this occurring.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

[John Willis]

When I think "class", you think "specific" and vice versa. We are very often 
ying and yang! 

There are so, so, so many single retail buildings where one store has a few 
tiny kiosks inside (without being a mall) - almost every supermarket I know in 
the US has an (independent) bank, a starbucks, a dry cleaner, or some other 
sub-leased little spot. Near the front to serve customers. 

We don't have "building=drop_forge" and building=paint_booth for industrial, 
yet those are specialty building types - because the the absolute myriad of 
mixes and matches that occur. Retail buildings more often than not cannot be 
grouped into sets by built usage, like an office building, house, or apartment 
building could. 

Defining a building by a particular amenity alone doesn't sound very good when 
the building and function are so easily separated, and easily separated from 
its parent landuse=* (a shop in a college, a gift shop at a temple, a 7-11 in a 
hotel, etc) 

If you really want to define retail buildings *as buildings* - then you need to 
define them by their built types: single_shop, strip_mall, shopping_Centre, 
shopping_centre_anchor, urban_mixed, rural_mixed, indoor_mall, mall_anchor, 
mall_outlier, outdoor_mall, warehouse, big-box, etc. a market could be in any 
one of those depending on the region or country. 

There are guidelines for naming mall types as well 
http://www.icsc.org/research/references/c-shopping-center-definitions

Imo, using building=to define shop type is the same as using building=to define 
office company type. Can you tell by looking - without logo - if it is the HQ 
of a bank, a law firm, a school district, or a bunch of disparate tenants? I 
don't think so.

I want some generic classes of buildings to denote general purpose. 
I want the same landuses to denote general purpose as well, because so often a 
building or a an amenity type is an outlier to the general landuse (most city 
halls have a convenience store for selling government stamps in Japan), so you 
can at least get an idea of class and render class of building and landuse 
differently, and then slap on the icon of whatever shop= office= or amenity= on 
tag has been added to the area, building, or point on top of it all.  

I should be able to zoom out to where there are no icons -  and see retail, 
commercial, industrial, residential, civic-government, and specialty  (school, 
hospital, park, etc) buildings and *landuses* rendered differently and 
instantly understand the layout of a city without a single label,shield, or 
icon. 

And the basis for that is a complete set of landuse and complimentary building 
tags. 

Javbw

> On Aug 28, 2015, at 8:21 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>> Am 28.08.2015 um 00:20 schrieb John Willis :
>> 
>> Interestingly, most electronics shops are "on stilts" - first floor is 
>> parking, second floor is is the main floor. In Tokyo, everything is crammed 
>> into the bottom floors of multi-story buildings, with the supermarkets in 
>> the basements of large buildings or malls
> 
> 
> I would bet both of them could be described with distinctive building types. 
> It's pointless to call them building=retail because you can already see it 
> from the building user (shop tag) that it's a retail building.
> 
> 
> cheers 
> Martin 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging