Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:47 AM, joost schouppe 
wrote:

> Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the
> building=yes tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building?
>
My feeling is that individual buildings should be mapped.

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 16.03.2016 um 17:12 schrieb Blake Girardot :
> 
> Otherwise we are going to get blocks of easily mapped buildings outlined as 
> building just because that is a lot easier and then leave the detailed 
> mapping to someone else.


I sometimes encountered whole blocks mapped as a single building. Often I moved 
these to landuse and removed the building tag.


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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 10:37 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 2016-03-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Ralph Aytoun :
> >  
> > At the moment I see mappers leaving blank spaces because they
> > cannot identify individual buildings, either because of the
> > complexity of the area or because the imagery is not sharp enough.
> > This approach will allow them to indicate that there are structures
> > there but need more attention.
> > 
> 
> IMHO if you can't identify individual buildings because you are
> working from remote and don't know the area and the aerial imagery is
> not sharp enough, you simply shouldn't map individual buildings and
> refrain from using the building tag. Use the landuse tag, map the
> areas and wait for better imagery, or use alternative methods if you
> are on the ground and know how to do it.
> 
It is not that simple and certainly not about aerial imagery quality,
we are not all mapping planned North American cities where everything
is a perfect right angle.
In the real world we are mapping towns with medieval building patterns
that evolved over millennia and even modern buildings that replace
older buildings must still fit within this plan.
Whilst you can see roof lines, the buildings can fill the entire block
and from above it is not possible to work out what frontage building
each roofline belongs to. To say that in this case just map as landuse
is totally wrong. A single building is a start, or more likely several
single buildings. It is far easier to then survey the area on the
ground having something to improve than working with a blank landuse.
For example you may visit a shop and as you wander through there will
be nooks and crannys, it may open out into a another building and armed
with the roughly mapped buildings you can work out where you are and
that belongs to that building and improve the mapping.
Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Blake Girardot]

I am reluctant to suggest that mapping large groups of buildings as one 
outline is a good idea. As I said, to me it is a last resort and should 
be avoided at all costs. Otherwise we are going to get blocks of easily 
mapped buildings outlined as building just because that is a lot easier 
and then leave the detailed mapping to someone else.


But that being said, since it is acceptable to map large blocks of 
buildings as building in some circumstances, I think we might need a new 
value to the building=* key.


Most data consumers that I work with usually consider building=yes to 
indicate one building.


If we know we are mapping multiple buildings under one polygon would it 
be a good idea to add something like a 'multiple' value to the key?


building=multiple

That would also make it easier to locate them for further refined 
mapping in the future.


cheers
blake



On 3/16/2016 4:48 PM, althio wrote:

Simon Poole wrote:

IMHO we always allow and support progression from rough to more detailed.


+1

Philip Barnes wrote:

Mike Thompson wrote:

My feeling is that individual buildings should be mapped.


In an ideal world I would agree, but we don't live in one and in some cases 
such as medieval building layout it can be incredibly difficult to work out 
what roofline belongs to which building.

I would say its ok, and better than not mapping buildings at all, then you can 
always improve it after more surveys.


+1


I agree it is good to have rough mapping and let it improve over time.

Back to OP question:
Once you trace a rough outline for multiple buildings, what is the tag?
building=yes? or another value?
with a note=*? a fixme=*?

- althio

___
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] building=yes for multiple building

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 19.03.2016 um 15:24 schrieb Mike Thompson :
> 
> Here is an example of what I feel should be discouraged:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/404484020


here some other examples 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/941438

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/60616962

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Simon Poole]

We are really discussing two different issues here.

- use of building key for buildup areas that should be
landuse=residential or other landuse variants, don't think anybody
disagrees that building is misplaced is such situations

- use of one building outline for a complex of potentially more than one
building that are adjacent and not easily divided in to individual
component structures (I had to laugh at the suggested "can stand on its
own" criteria, having seen other building collapse when one in a row has
been demolished).

Simon

Am 17.03.2016 um 06:41 schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier:
> On 03/16/2016 03:47 PM, joost schouppe wrote:
>> Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the
>> building=yes tag ? Or does building=yes imply it is one single
>> building ?
>
> building=yes is a single building.
>
> I have encountered this problem a lot in Senegal. I talked with local
> mappers and I found the root cause: university GIS courses teach them
> to map "built-up zones" and they gravitate towards building=yes for
> that. We are pushing the message that it is not the right way to do it
> - that is what landuse=* is for and there are also some place=* such
> as place=city_block.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-03-17 1:04 GMT+01:00 Clifford Snow :

> I used to work in the telecom field. We often did lateral additions to the
> building. Many times different entrances would have different addresses.



yes, multiple addresses on the same building do occur, at least in some
regions. I am aware of Germany and Italy where it both happens (in Italy it
is the standard). Assigning addresses to a building can make sense in some
cases (areas), but it definitely doesn't (always) in others.

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-03-17 9:21 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :

> Is a bus shelter or a bridge a "building"? If a house is substantially
> extended to create a new independent living area, at what point does that
> become a new Building?



a bridge is definitely not a building, a bus shelter might be considered a
building, depending on your definition (by the one you cited it wouldn't
because it is not lockable, but beeing lockable is a overly strict
requirement that isn't commonly used). I would see it like this: the tag
building in osm covers both, actual buildings but also some technical
structures (looking somehow like a building, but not suited for humans to
enter and/or stay).

Regarding the extension I would say that these are still the same building
in many cases (in others it isn't, e.g. if it's completely detached, if
it's structurally independent and has its own entrance, etc.). Might be
worth considering the "building:part" key as well for many of these.

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[althio]

Simon Poole wrote:
> IMHO we always allow and support progression from rough to more detailed.

+1

Philip Barnes wrote:
> Mike Thompson wrote:
>> My feeling is that individual buildings should be mapped.
>>
> In an ideal world I would agree, but we don't live in one and in some cases 
> such as medieval building layout it can be incredibly difficult to work out 
> what roofline belongs to which building.
>
> I would say its ok, and better than not mapping buildings at all, then you 
> can always improve it after more surveys.

+1


I agree it is good to have rough mapping and let it improve over time.

Back to OP question:
Once you trace a rough outline for multiple buildings, what is the tag?
building=yes? or another value?
with a note=*? a fixme=*?

- althio

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 03/16/2016 03:47 PM, joost schouppe wrote:
Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the 
building=yes tag ? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building ?


building=yes is a single building.

I have encountered this problem a lot in Senegal. I talked with local 
mappers and I found the root cause: university GIS courses teach them to 
map "built-up zones" and they gravitate towards building=yes for that. 
We are pushing the message that it is not the right way to do it - that 
is what landuse=* is for and there are also some place=* such as 
place=city_block.



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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[althio]

Mike Thompson wrote:
> Here is an example of what I feel should be discouraged:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/404484020
>
> (given that this is part of a HOT project, it is likely to be
> corrected/improved soon)
>
> In this case the individual buildings are clearly visible, and there is
> non-building space between them.

This seems obviously wrong.


Another example then from HOT project:

What about the bigger blocks around the mosquee in this place?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/33.60861/36.30919

Fair tracing?
Tag? building=yes vs landuse=residential vs building=???

- althio

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Mike Thompson]

Here is an example of what I feel should be discouraged:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/404484020

(given that this is part of a HOT project, it is likely to be
corrected/improved soon)

In this case the individual buildings are clearly visible, and there is
non-building space between them.

Mike

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 10:37 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> 2016-03-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Ralph Aytoun :
>
>
> At the moment I see mappers leaving blank spaces because they cannot
> identify individual buildings, either because of the complexity of the area
> or because the imagery is not sharp enough. This approach will allow them
> to indicate that there are structures there but need more attention.
>
>
>
> IMHO if you can't identify individual buildings because you are working
> from remote and don't know the area and the aerial imagery is not sharp
> enough, you simply shouldn't map individual buildings and refrain from
> using the building tag. Use the landuse tag, map the areas and wait for
> better imagery, or use alternative methods if you are on the ground and
> know how to do it.
>
>
> It is not that simple and certainly not about aerial imagery quality, we
> are not all mapping planned North American cities where everything is a
> perfect right angle.
>
> In the real world we are mapping towns with medieval building patterns
> that evolved over millennia and even modern buildings that replace older
> buildings must still fit within this plan.
>
> Whilst you can see roof lines, the buildings can fill the entire block and
> from above it is not possible to work out what frontage building each
> roofline belongs to. To say that in this case just map as landuse is
> totally wrong. A single building is a start, or more likely several single
> buildings. It is far easier to then survey the area on the ground having
> something to improve than working with a blank landuse.
>
> For example you may visit a shop and as you wander through there will be
> nooks and crannys, it may open out into a another building and armed with
> the roughly mapped buildings you can work out where you are and that
> belongs to that building and improve the mapping.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] building=yes for multiple building

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 16.03.2016 um 15:47 schrieb joost schouppe :
> 
> Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the building=yes 
> tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building?


IMHO we should try to map every building as its own object, but you can't be 
sure that something mapped as building=* is indeed exactly one building and not 
more and not just a part of a building.



> There is the terrace value, but that implies one orderly structure, not the 
> hodgepodge of houses, buildings and extensions that define organically grown 
> blocks.


building=terrace can mean a terrace on its own but most of the times it is 
unfortunately a short form for terraced_house ;-)
If it's intended for the latter I'd still expect individual houses to be 
mapped, not the whole block as one object


> 
> There are a couple of "multiple" values too, which make sense, but is 
> undocumented and maybe overly precise.


which sense can they make if there is no documentation for it? Are they 
different grades of specificity for the same building? E.g. 
building=residential;detached_house;bungalow (always the same building)
Or are they several buildings represented by the same outline? Or are they 
building uses and not building types?


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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Simon Poole]

IMHO we always allow and support progression from rough to more detailed.

If actual building outlines are difficult to determine then one outline
for the complex is completely OK. Typical example: medieval cities.

Am 16.03.2016 um 15:47 schrieb joost schouppe:
> Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the
> building=yes tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building?
> There is the terrace value, but that implies one orderly structure,
> not the hodgepodge of houses, buildings and extensions that define
> organically grown blocks.
>
> There are a couple of "multiple" values too, which make sense, but is
> undocumented and maybe overly precise.
>
> -- 
> Joost @
> Openstreetmap
>  | Twitter
>  | LinkedIn
>  | Meetup
>  | Reddit
>  | Wordpress
> 
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> In an ideal world I would agree, but we don't live in one and in some
> cases such as medieval building layout it can be incredibly difficult to
> work out what roofline belongs to which building.
>
Yes, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to tell whether one is
dealing with one or several buildings. We should do our best make the
determination and go with it.

>
> I would say its ok, and better than not mapping buildings at all, then you
> can always improve it after more surveys.
>
What I have seen is entire blocks mapped as a building in a rather sloppy
fashion when it obviously contains many buildings as well as areas where
there are no buildings.

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-03-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Ralph Aytoun :

>
> At the moment I see mappers leaving blank spaces because they cannot
> identify individual buildings, either because of the complexity of the area
> or because the imagery is not sharp enough. This approach will allow them
> to indicate that there are structures there but need more attention.
>


IMHO if you can't identify individual buildings because you are working
from remote and don't know the area and the aerial imagery is not sharp
enough, you simply shouldn't map individual buildings and refrain from
using the building tag. Use the landuse tag, map the areas and wait for
better imagery, or use alternative methods if you are on the ground and
know how to do it.

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Ralph Aytoun]

Hi all,

I notice the same trend happening with nearly all discussions. 

Instead of being able to consistently look at and discuss these key features as 
a world-wide general term the discussion tends to become mired in precise local 
situations.

The discussion was originally about the key ‘building’ which is a general term 
used to indicate a structure of some kind (this would be the broadest 
definition which would be acceptable in nearly every part of the world).

The value would be what defines the more precise description of that structure 
(e.g. Single household, multiple use, shed, garage, etc.)

With armchair mapping it may not always be possible to identify the extent of 
single buildings (as in an informal slum area, or a complex high rise city 
centre where the imagery is oblique).

It is preferable in this situation to allow the indication that there are 
structures there that need more detailed sorting and am in agreement with Blake 
about the possibility of adding a tag building=multiple which should flag up in 
any validation process as needing attention (as highway=road does). I also 
agree that this should be only used as a last resort and sparingly.

At the moment I see mappers leaving blank spaces because they cannot identify 
individual buildings, either because of the complexity of the area or because 
the imagery is not sharp enough. This approach will allow them to indicate that 
there are structures there but need more attention.







From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 8:55 AM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building


2016-03-17 1:04 GMT+01:00 Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us>:

  I used to work in the telecom field. We often did lateral additions to the 
building. Many times different entrances would have different addresses.


yes, multiple addresses on the same building do occur, at least in some 
regions. I am aware of Germany and Italy where it both happens (in Italy it is 
the standard). Assigning addresses to a building can make sense in some cases 
(areas), but it definitely doesn't (always) in others.


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] building=yes for multiple building

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-03-17 8:49 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole :

> (I had to laugh at the suggested "can stand on its
> own" criteria, having seen other building collapse when one in a row has
> been demolished).
>


yes, it happens. One of the reasons is that buildings don't fly ;-)
They are standing on the ground, exercising pressure on the ground, and if
you remove the pressure (=building) at one side it might happen (depending
on the force and the ground) that part of the ground below an adjacent
building "moves" into this now "pressure-free" area. It happens almost
always, but it depends how much it does if the other buildings still remain
or collapse...
Still I wouldn't say that in these cases the building couldn't stand on its
own, it is a technical error of not having stabilzed the ground below
sufficiently.

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

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Colin Smale]

We will need a definition of "building". Some may consider a terrace of
houses to be a single building. 

One definition I have worked with involves assessing the ability of the
"building" to remain standing and usable if the "buildings" on either
side were removed. If a house in the middle of a terrace was destroyed
or demolished, would the adjoining houses still be structurally sound?
If so, they are separate buildings. If not, the terrace is one building.

This also has meaning in the vertical dimension. In a block of flats,
the units cannot be called buildings because they are structurally
dependent on each other. 

Having said all that, using a single outline for a terrace of houses is
an adequate first-order approximation for many purposes. Further
refinement by splitting into individual dwellings is a possible "next
step" if the information is available and if a mapper has time. 

--colin 

On 2016-03-16 17:12, Blake Girardot wrote:

> I am reluctant to suggest that mapping large groups of buildings as one 
> outline is a good idea. As I said, to me it is a last resort and should be 
> avoided at all costs. Otherwise we are going to get blocks of easily mapped 
> buildings outlined as building just because that is a lot easier and then 
> leave the detailed mapping to someone else.
> 
> But that being said, since it is acceptable to map large blocks of buildings 
> as building in some circumstances, I think we might need a new value to the 
> building=* key.
> 
> Most data consumers that I work with usually consider building=yes to 
> indicate one building.
> 
> If we know we are mapping multiple buildings under one polygon would it be a 
> good idea to add something like a 'multiple' value to the key?
> 
> building=multiple
> 
> That would also make it easier to locate them for further refined mapping in 
> the future.
> 
> cheers
> blake
> 
> On 3/16/2016 4:48 PM, althio wrote: Simon Poole wrote: IMHO we always allow 
> and support progression from rough to more detailed. 
> +1
> 
> Philip Barnes wrote: Mike Thompson wrote: My feeling is that individual 
> buildings should be mapped.
> 
> In an ideal world I would agree, but we don't live in one and in some cases 
> such as medieval building layout it can be incredibly difficult to work out 
> what roofline belongs to which building.
> 
> I would say its ok, and better than not mapping buildings at all, then you 
> can always improve it after more surveys.

+1

I agree it is good to have rough mapping and let it improve over time.

Back to OP question:
Once you trace a rough outline for multiple buildings, what is the tag?
building=yes? or another value?
with a note=*? a fixme=*?

- althio

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

___
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] building=yes for multiple building

[Blake Girardot]

Hi Joost,

The main wiki entry on building tagging says this about building tagging:

"In addition outlines can either be simplified shapes or very detailed 
outlines which conform accurately to the shape of the building. It is 
not uncommon for buildings to initially be described as simple group 
outlines later be improved with more detailed outlines and to be split 
into individual properties."


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buildings

I think that fits in well with the idea that mapping and tagging can be 
refined as part of the overall mapping process.


Although, I always encourage people to outline the individual buildings 
if you can tell they are individual building units, even with a shared wall.


The downside of not strictly encouraging that style of mapping is large 
blocks of buildings being outlined with one building=yes tag which is 
much less useful for most use cases of building footprints.


So for me only in the most extreme circumstances will I use a single 
building outline for what I suspect might be multiple individual 
buildings, but I do it once in a while if there is just no way to 
reliably distinguish what might be individual buildings.


Cheers
blake



On 3/16/2016 3:47 PM, joost schouppe wrote:

Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the
building=yes tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building?
There is the terrace value, but that implies one orderly structure, not
the hodgepodge of houses, buildings and extensions that define
organically grown blocks.

There are a couple of "multiple" values too, which make sense, but is
undocumented and maybe overly precise.

--
Joost @
Openstreetmap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup
 | Reddit
 | Wordpress



___
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] building=yes for multiple building

[Clifford Snow]

I used to work in the telecom field. We often did lateral additions to the
building. Many times different entrances would have different addresses.
Because the buildings were different heights it is difficult to determine
where one building ended and another started. For example the CenturyLink
building (which is a block long) at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/44.97785/-93.26680 is multiple
buildings, yet shown as one.

Where possible buildings should be shown as individual buildings, but
sometimes we just don't have the information available.

Off topic, but the antennas on top of the CenturyLink building were mostly
for looks. Only a few were actually used. I wonder if they even use any of
them any more. I'll have to see if I can find anyone that still works there.

Clifford

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > Am 16.03.2016 um 17:12 schrieb Blake Girardot :
> >
> > Otherwise we are going to get blocks of easily mapped buildings outlined
> as building just because that is a lot easier and then leave the detailed
> mapping to someone else.
>
>
> I sometimes encountered whole blocks mapped as a single building. Often I
> moved these to landuse and removed the building tag.
>
>
> cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed Mar 16 15:03:25 2016 GMT, Mike Thompson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:47 AM, joost schouppe 
> wrote:
> 
> > Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the
> > building=yes tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building?
> >
> My feeling is that individual buildings should be mapped.
> 
In an ideal world I would agree, but we don't live in one and in some cases 
such as medieval building layout it can be incredibly difficult to work out 
what roofline belongs to which building. 

I would say its ok, and better than not mapping buildings at all, then you can 
always improve it after more surveys.

Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Colin Smale]

On 2016-03-17 08:49, Simon Poole wrote:

> - use of one building outline for a complex of potentially more than one
> building that are adjacent and not easily divided in to individual
> component structures (I had to laugh at the suggested "can stand on its
> own" criteria, having seen other building collapse when one in a row has
> been demolished).

It can conjour up some amusing images, I agree, and maybe not entirely
perfect. But what I wrote is based on the fact that this was one of the
heuristic criteria for the Dutch government in an exercise over the past
few years of giving every "building" an identifier, with an N:M relation
with ownership and habitation (i.e. one building can contain (parts of)
multiple occupancy units, and one occupancy unit can be spread over
multiple buildings or parts thereof. Other criteria included the ability
for a human to stand. 

A typical summary of the definition of a "building" for these purposes
is "de kleinste bij de totstandkoming functioneel en
bouwkundig-constructief zelfstandige eenheid die direct en duurzaam met
de aarde is verbonden [1] en betreedbaar en afsluitbaar is" is a basic
description, which translates to "the smallest unit which is
constructionally independent, built directly upon the ground, enterable
(by a human) and lockable" 

Is a bus shelter or a bridge a "building"? If a house is substantially
extended to create a new independent living area, at what point does
that become a new Building? 

Not that I am suggesting we have such strict rules... but some well
thought-out guidelines would help to assure a bit of consistency. 

--colin 

Links:
--
[1] https://www.amsterdam.nl/stelselpedia/woordenboek/#Duurzaamverbonden
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

[Dave F]

As Simon P says "we allow and support progression from rough to more 
detailed."


To use your terrace example:

building=yes is OK, but far from perfect
building=terrace is good, but there's still room for improvement
mapping each house & tagging them building=house/office etc is much 
better especially if combined with other tags such as addresses.


What detail you decide to map to is up to you, depending on time & patience.

Dave F.

On 16/03/2016 14:47, joost schouppe wrote:
Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the 
building=yes tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building?
There is the terrace value, but that implies one orderly structure, 
not the hodgepodge of houses, buildings and extensions that define 
organically grown blocks.


There are a couple of "multiple" values too, which make sense, but is 
undocumented and maybe overly precise.


--
Joost @
Openstreetmap  | 
Twitter  | LinkedIn 
 | Meetup 
 | 
Reddit  | Wordpress 




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




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging