Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-18 8:46 GMT+01:00 johnw :

> Martin - Do you have any suggestion for cleaning up the civic=* subkey I
> was suggesting for building=civic in this way?
>
> I assume we need a big generic key, and then a many subcategories that
> fall under that key.
>
> Building=civic
> +
> civic:legislation=city council ?
> civic:administration=motor_vehicles ?
>
>

building is about the _building_ typology. "civic" or "public_building" are
not amongst the building types I'd suggest to use, I'd go for stuff that is
more literal / specific like

building=community_center
building=courthouse
building=government_administration
building=hospital
building=library
building=post_office
building=school
building=church
building=concert_hall
building=university
building=town_hall
building=train_station
building=art_gallery
building=museum



for functions like "city council", "driver and vehicle licensing agency",
"ministry of defense" we should not use the building key (and not even the
building object IMHO) but use a dedicated object and have tags for these
functions. This would maybe better work with subtags, one tag to say
something like: this is a government agency, and another tag to say which
type/function of agency it is.

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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[johnw]

> On Nov 17, 2014, at 9:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> there will be more people with even more ideas and classification needs. 
> Therefor the foo=bar, bar=x way of subtyping, which implies there is only one 
> kind of subtyping, should generally be deprecated in favor of more verbose 
> subtyping-keys like foo=bar, bar:property=x


Martin - Do you have any suggestion for cleaning up the civic=* subkey I was 
suggesting for building=civic in this way? 

I assume we need a big generic key, and then a many subcategories that fall 
under that key. 

Building=civic
+
civic:legislation=city council ?
civic:administration=motor_vehicles ?

That kind of thing? It would allow for a lot more description with much fewer 
tags. I was thinking of letting the amenity on the building dictate if it is a 
city_hall or a DMV, but this seems to be a good chance to follow the 
key:subkey=subkey_value structure. 

I know it isn’t  Building:civic=city_council, Which seems to be what you are 
advocating (I think), but we have to work within the existing structure for 
building=X  & X=*  still, right? 


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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[johnw]

> On Nov 17, 2014, at 9:34 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 2014-11-14 5:03 GMT+01:00 johnw mailto:jo...@mac.com>>:
> A couple more landuse cases were added. I’m going to ask now if it is a good 
> idea to specifically exclude Police/fire/safety and give them their own 
> landuse(s). 
> 
> 
> this can be very different from one country to another. E.g. in Italy there 
> are lots of different kind of police forces, some are military, others 
> aren't, so don't take for granted that all kind of police should get the same 
> landuse.
> 

Well, I was trying to think of something generic that could be flexible to 
adapt to different conditions, as I’m aware there are many different kind of 
police forces, and different levels of them - AKA local, county, Regional, 
national, and Civil and Military - but all of them are geared towards 
“policing” the citizens - not fighting wars, defending land form invaders, etc.

> Also fire departments will not necessarily have the same landuse, dependent 
> on how we will classify them, e.g. in Germany there are volunteering and 
> professional fire fighters.
> 

not sure how what affects the landuse of the stations. In California there are 
similar Volunteer stations, or ones manned only during fire season (they are in 
the countryside). I have heard that some small towns have volunteer-only  fire 
services. But that shouldn’t affect the marking of the landuse as a station, I 
believe - the’re all just buildings holding fire trucks. There is probably a 
way to mark manned or unmanned with existing tags - but if there isn’t maybe 
that is something for a fire=* subtag or something.

> Not sure what "safety" is about in this context, can you give a definition or 
> (less preferably) some examples what to include and exclude? (e.g. road 
> maintenance? snow plowing? putting road signs? monitoring stream gauges? 
> analyzing drinking water? homologating 
> vehicles/machinery/(construction/electrical/toys/clothes/...) products/food? 
> Controlling restaurants for hygiene?)

Definition for the landuse:

I chose Civic_safety thinking that it is for  “services that directly protect 
or safeguard the lives of citizens",  while excluding medical - as Hospitals 
are well established. 


“Safety" seemed to be the right choice, because I’m not implying emergency 
versus non-emergency as in  "someone sole my car, so I need to go to the police 
station to report it.” versus “Someone is stealing my car now, so I need the 
police here urgently!" That is [should be?] a separate tag. Isn’t that covered 
by Emergency=*  ? 

Police vs military police:

Similar with Military forces for military purposes - they are not involved with 
the protection of citizens - but the protection of the state as a whole. A 
Military police HQ for a force that is actually policing the citizens citizens 
(as opposed to the military itself) is still just a police station - it’s 
military roots would show up in the operator or even the name tag, right? an MP 
office would be on a military base, not downtown next to the city hall or the 
rec center. That would be a police station [for the citizens] - The fact that 
they are military or civilian cops are not really pertinent to their mandate to 
protect and serve the citizenry directly. I have very little experience in 
Military policing citizens in a non-emergency manner - but A police station is 
just a police station, right? 

If they were truly military - wouldn’t their facility be treated with 
landuse=military and an amenity=police_station in it instead? 
Either way, if you feel that such a force is worth being recognized as military 
or as a policing body, it is easy to describe the building and land through 
either landuse (=civic_safety or military) and the existing amenity tag.

Examples:

Police, fire, Lifeguards, Ranger stations(?) snow patrol, Highway patrol, etc 
*directly* safeguard the lives of citizens.  People who maintain equipment or 
utilities indirectly do so - the road worker fixing a pothole, or a guy 
trimming trees also is indirectly safeguarding my life (through accident 
prevention) - but the people responding to a burglar or a fire at my location 
is directly safeguarding my well being, as is a lifeguard looking for sharks or 
saving drowning people. People examining pipes are merely safeguarding 
investments, reducing liability, or checking the quality of a product, service, 
or utility. A fire brigade stopping a fire at such a  facility is a whole 
different matter.

As a [former] computer technician, It is my job to safeguard your computer and 
It’s data, and indirectly your life making sure your computer doesn’t burn down 
your house. But I would never consider myself a fireman. I have found stolen 
equipment, but I would never consider myself the police. 

My friend is an electrical inspector/engineer. He verifies the safety of the 
electrical equipment at “high” voltages (~6000v). If he screws up, your factory 
could burn 

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-14 12:09 GMT+01:00 Pieren :

> I don't think we need a civic subkey in landuse. When I see the
> growing list, it will finally generate very small landuse polygons in
> OSM. This is not the intend of the OSM "landuse".
>


there is no indication of this, the wiki remains very generic and doesn't
say anything useful. "small" is completely ambiguous, is an ant small?
Compared to a bacterion?



> We put "tax",
> "immigration" or "legislative" into the buildings where these services
> are.
>


you are presuming that those have to take place in "buildings"?
I agree with you that we should not use landuse instead of actual keys
which describe (in the end also in a detailed level) functions like a
specific government office. I'd want to use osm to see where I can get a
new passport in the future. There are lots of different government agencies
and offices? So what, let's start and we'll adapt and refine with the time
to come to something useful.



> Otherwise, it is endless. We could create a subkey for
> "landuse=residential" with "residential=home" or "residential=garage"
> or "residential=toilets_in_the_garden"
>


Actually I would prefer a different direction for "residential" subtyping,
something which describes
- the urban structure (might be also done with automatic analysis up to a
certain point, given that a lot of data is available (including building
types and heights, which makes this hard to realistically come true in the
next years).
- the density (could maybe be done with population if data was available,
also )

there will be more people with even more ideas and classification needs.
Therefor the foo=bar, bar=x way of subtyping, which implies there is only
one kind of subtyping, should generally be deprecated in favor of more
verbose subtyping-keys like foo=bar, bar:property=x

More than for residential, I see a missing piece in industrial. In Germany,
there are 2 quite different types of what in OSM both is industrial:
Gewerbegebiet and Industriegebiet, which in OSM could be translated to
industrial subtypes.

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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-14 5:03 GMT+01:00 johnw :

> A couple more landuse cases were added. I’m going to ask now if it is a
> good idea to specifically exclude Police/fire/safety and give them their
> own landuse(s).




this can be very different from one country to another. E.g. in Italy there
are lots of different kind of police forces, some are military, others
aren't, so don't take for granted that all kind of police should get the
same landuse.

Also fire departments will not necessarily have the same landuse, dependent
on how we will classify them, e.g. in Germany there are volunteering and
professional fire fighters.

Not sure what "safety" is about in this context, can you give a definition
or (less preferably) some examples what to include and exclude? (e.g. road
maintenance? snow plowing? putting road signs? monitoring stream gauges?
analyzing drinking water? homologating
vehicles/machinery/(construction/electrical/toys/clothes/...)
products/food? Controlling restaurants for hygiene?)

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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[johnw]

Updated and clarified the split of civic into 3 separate keys - civic_admin, 
civic_service, and civic_safety. Also discussed judicial and penal. 

civic_safety and penal are interesting, because there is no landuse for police 
stations, fire stations, jails or prisons. Martin suggested splitting out 
courthouses as well (landuse=judicial). 

I look forward to responding to everyone’s feedback here in the mailing list. 


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/landuse%3Dcivic&action=submit
 



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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[johnw]

> On Nov 14, 2014, at 9:56 PM, Pieren  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:29 PM, johnw  wrote:
> 
>> it is a subkey for the buildings, to go with building=civic.
> 
> My concern is about splitting a landuse polygon just to refine
> information that could be stored on buildings themselves for instance.
> 
Do you mean the split between Civic_service and Civic_admin, or seperating out 
emergency, judicial, and penal?

because if the subkey is for the building, a complex would have 1 single 
landuse_admin, and the building=civic differentiated with civic=* key, 
including a civic=mixeduse value for when everything is jammed together in a 
single building (in El Cajon, Califonia for example, the city offices, 
courthouse, and Jail are all a single building). 

Javbw


> Pieren
> 
> ___
> 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] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Pieren]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:29 PM, johnw  wrote:

> it is a subkey for the buildings, to go with building=civic.

My concern is about splitting a landuse polygon just to refine
information that could be stored on buildings themselves for instance.

Pieren

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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[johnw]

> On Nov 14, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Pieren  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:03 AM, johnw  wrote:
>> A couple more landuse cases were added. I’m going to ask now if it is a good
>> idea to specifically exclude Police/fire/safety and give them their own
>> landuse(s).

these are just use cases for when to use the generic landuse=civic. Still 
trying to figure out what to exclude or to make another landuse tag for.

> 
> I don't think we need a civic subkey in landuse. 

it is a subkey for the buildings, to go with building=civic. 

From the page:  
 it might be best to create a civic 
=*
 subtag that goes with building 
=civic 
 

wondering if is good to give some basic types of civic buildings through a 
subkey. 

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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Pieren]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:03 AM, johnw  wrote:
> A couple more landuse cases were added. I’m going to ask now if it is a good
> idea to specifically exclude Police/fire/safety and give them their own
> landuse(s).

I don't think we need a civic subkey in landuse. When I see the
growing list, it will finally generate very small landuse polygons in
OSM. This is not the intend of the OSM "landuse". We put "tax",
"immigration" or "legislative" into the buildings where these services
are. Otherwise, it is endless. We could create a subkey for
"landuse=residential" with "residential=home" or "residential=garage"
or "residential=toilets_in_the_garden"

Pieren

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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[johnw]

A couple more landuse cases were added. I’m going to ask now if it is a good 
idea to specifically exclude Police/fire/safety and give them their own 
landuse(s). 

Safety could cover the lifeguard/ski patrol/ranger buildings that are public or 
privately operated for the purposes of interacting with the public, like a 
lifeguard station or ranger station.

I know people have been trying to clean up emergency for a long time, so this 
helpful? 

> 
> Please check out the discussion page’s section on this at:
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/landuse%3Dcivic#If_we_need_two_tags.2C_what_should_be_covered_in_each.3F
>  
> 
> 

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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[johnw]

If we are to split landuse=civic into  civic_services and civic_admin, Then I 
would like some feedback on the categories things fall into. 

On the discussion page, I listed out some building types that would fall into 
either one, and I would like opinions on removals or additions to the lists. 

Please check out the discussion page’s section on this at:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/landuse%3Dcivic#If_we_need_two_tags.2C_what_should_be_covered_in_each.3F
 



The mixed-use case of each is probably their largest use, along with 
Legislative and capital buildings for civic_admin. 

Both cities I have lived in In Japan and America have similar mixed-use 
Civic_services  and Civic_admin centres in each city - and  most every city I 
have visited as well. 



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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-07 11:02 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer :

> Yes I agree we should not include them, for two main reasons:
>
> - landuse should not describe ownership, by any means. Ownership
>   is not publicly verifiable, they remain closed source.
>


for publicly owned land it is often possible to get ownership information.
Private ownership is often protected by privacy laws and may not be
disclosed (often).

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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-07 8:30 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :

> I would not expect the landuse value of the municipal bus company's HQ to
> change if the bus company was privatised... Only the ownership will have
> changed, nothing else. Actually, as the buildings are probably leased from
> a property company anyway, even that would stay the same. Just the
> shareholders of the company would different.
>

+1, that's also what I see here as problematic


> So I would suggest "civic" or "government" or whatever should only be
> applied where the activities taking place there are actually "civic
> administration" - council meetings, committees, births/deaths/marriages,
>

+1, the tag should reflect this, it should not be "civic" but
"civic_administration" (or similar). "civic" - as has been noted before -
is too generic and not self explaining, at least not for non-native English
speakers.


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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Tom Pfeifer]

Yes I agree we should not include them, for two main reasons:

- landuse should not describe ownership, by any means. Ownership
  is not publicly verifiable, they remain closed source. Even
  when land registries (fr/cadastre de/Kataster) now publish
  property boundaries, the owner remains closed. No other
  landuse tag describes ownership, and this proposal should not
  establish a precedent.

- transportation is sufficiently covered by existing landuse tags,
  there is landuse=railway and aeroway=aerodrome for the major
  infrastructure. Their headquarters can stand on landuse=commercial
  as there is usually some usage fee involved. Who operates them
  should be described in the operator= tag.

tom

p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote on 2014-11-07 10:04:

On Fri Nov 07 2014 07:30:30 GMT+ (GMT), Colin Smale wrote:



I would not expect the landuse value of the municipal bus company's HQ
to change if the bus company was privatised... Only the ownership will
have changed, nothing else. Actually, as the buildings are probably
leased from a property company anyway, even that would stay the same.
Just the shareholders of the company would different.

So I would suggest "civic" or "government" or whatever should only be
applied where the activities taking place there are actually "civic
administration" - council meetings, committees, births/deaths/marriages,
highways,. i.e. the core business of a local authority as defined in
law. Sidelines like running transport companies or sports grounds are
not "landuse=civic" to my mind.


+1

I totally agree Colin, it would be equally ridiculous to tag schools or parks 
as civic.

Phil (trigpoint )



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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[phil]

On Fri Nov 07 2014 07:30:30 GMT+ (GMT), Colin Smale wrote:
>  
> 
> I would not expect the landuse value of the municipal bus company's HQ
> to change if the bus company was privatised... Only the ownership will
> have changed, nothing else. Actually, as the buildings are probably
> leased from a property company anyway, even that would stay the same.
> Just the shareholders of the company would different. 
> 
> So I would suggest "civic" or "government" or whatever should only be
> applied where the activities taking place there are actually "civic
> administration" - council meetings, committees, births/deaths/marriages,
> highways,. i.e. the core business of a local authority as defined in
> law. Sidelines like running transport companies or sports grounds are
> not "landuse=civic" to my mind. 
 
+1

I totally agree Colin, it would be equally ridiculous to tag schools or parks 
as civic.

Phil (trigpoint )

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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Colin Smale]

 

I would not expect the landuse value of the municipal bus company's HQ
to change if the bus company was privatised... Only the ownership will
have changed, nothing else. Actually, as the buildings are probably
leased from a property company anyway, even that would stay the same.
Just the shareholders of the company would different. 

So I would suggest "civic" or "government" or whatever should only be
applied where the activities taking place there are actually "civic
administration" - council meetings, committees, births/deaths/marriages,
highways,. i.e. the core business of a local authority as defined in
law. Sidelines like running transport companies or sports grounds are
not "landuse=civic" to my mind. 

C. 

On 2014-11-07 08:16, Marc Gemis wrote: 

> My question was indeed for their offices (head-quarters etc.) 
> 
> regards 
> 
> m 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:54 AM, John Willis  wrote:
> 
> That is an interesting question. I think that falls outside the goal of this 
> tag but I am unsure. In America, Amtrak is nationalized, but I think most of 
> their facilities would fall under transportation related things - railway 
> stations, etc. but their main office, which is not a train station, would be 
> landuse=civic(_admin) I think. 
> 
> The bus station would be transportation related, but their office, where all 
> the paper-pushers reside, (who administers the service) 
> Would probably be similarly tagged. 
> 
> Javbw 
> 
> On Nov 7, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> What about buildings of public transport companies (bus, train, airplane) 
> that are owned and operated by the government. I assume they should be added 
> to the "civic" part ? 
> I know more and more countries are turning those companies into privately 
> owned, but there are probably countries where this is not the case.
> 
> regards 
> m 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
> To help us making up our minds which tag to prefer, or to check
> if we should use two of them, I have started a table of use cases
> that would suit one ore the other tag class better, and started
> with some examples, on the Talk page.
> 
> Tom Pfeifer wrote on 2014-11-05 11:21:
> Matthijs Melissen wrote on 2014-11-05 01:27:
>> I might have missed it in the discussion, but why not simply
>> landuse=governmental?
> 
> Well that was among my first ideas, hence the subject of this thread.
> We are currently collecting the arguments for each potential tags on the
> Talk page, feel free to contribute there or here:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/landuse%3Dcivic#Alternative_values
>  [1]
> 
> I start thinking that we might need even two tags, one for the 
> civic/municipal cases
> and one for the govenmental/administration ones. 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [2]

> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [2]

___
 Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [2]

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [2]

 

Links:
--
[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/landuse%3Dcivic#Alternative_values
[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Marc Gemis]

My question was indeed for their offices (head-quarters etc.)

regards

m

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:54 AM, John Willis  wrote:

> That is an interesting question. I think that falls outside the goal of
> this tag but I am unsure. In America, Amtrak is nationalized, but I think
> most of their facilities would fall under transportation related things -
> railway stations, etc. but their main office, which is not a train station,
> would be landuse=civic(_admin) I think.
>
> The bus station would be transportation related, but their office, where
> all the paper-pushers reside, (who administers the service)
> Would probably be similarly tagged.
>
> Javbw
>
>
>
> On Nov 7, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>
> What about buildings of public transport companies (bus, train, airplane)
> that are owned and operated by the government. I assume they should be
> added to the "civic" part ?
> I know more and more countries are turning those companies  into privately
> owned, but there are probably countries where this is not the case.
>
> regards
> m
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Tom Pfeifer 
> wrote:
>
>> To help us making up our minds which tag to prefer, or to check
>> if we should use two of them, I have started a table of use cases
>> that would suit one ore the other tag class better, and started
>> with some examples, on the Talk page.
>>
>> Tom Pfeifer wrote on 2014-11-05 11:21:
>>
>>> Matthijs Melissen wrote on 2014-11-05 01:27:
>>>  > I might have missed it in the discussion, but why not simply
>>>  > landuse=governmental?
>>>
>>> Well that was among my first ideas, hence the subject of this thread.
>>> We are currently collecting the arguments for each potential tags on the
>>> Talk page, feel free to contribute there or here:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_
>>> features/landuse%3Dcivic#Alternative_values
>>>
>>> I start thinking that we might need even two tags, one for the
>>> civic/municipal cases
>>> and one for the govenmental/administration ones.
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[John Willis]

That is an interesting question. I think that falls outside the goal of this 
tag but I am unsure. In America, Amtrak is nationalized, but I think most of 
their facilities would fall under transportation related things - railway 
stations, etc. but their main office, which is not a train station, would be 
landuse=civic(_admin) I think. 

The bus station would be transportation related, but their office, where all 
the paper-pushers reside, (who administers the service) 
Would probably be similarly tagged.

Javbw



> On Nov 7, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> What about buildings of public transport companies (bus, train, airplane) 
> that are owned and operated by the government. I assume they should be added 
> to the "civic" part ?
> I know more and more countries are turning those companies  into privately 
> owned, but there are probably countries where this is not the case.
> 
> regards
> m
> 
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
>> To help us making up our minds which tag to prefer, or to check
>> if we should use two of them, I have started a table of use cases
>> that would suit one ore the other tag class better, and started
>> with some examples, on the Talk page.
>> 
>> Tom Pfeifer wrote on 2014-11-05 11:21:
>>> Matthijs Melissen wrote on 2014-11-05 01:27:
>>>  > I might have missed it in the discussion, but why not simply
>>>  > landuse=governmental?
>>> 
>>> Well that was among my first ideas, hence the subject of this thread.
>>> We are currently collecting the arguments for each potential tags on the
>>> Talk page, feel free to contribute there or here:
>>> 
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/landuse%3Dcivic#Alternative_values
>>> 
>>> I start thinking that we might need even two tags, one for the 
>>> civic/municipal cases
>>> and one for the govenmental/administration ones.
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Marc Gemis]

What about buildings of public transport companies (bus, train, airplane)
that are owned and operated by the government. I assume they should be
added to the "civic" part ?
I know more and more countries are turning those companies  into privately
owned, but there are probably countries where this is not the case.

regards
m

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> To help us making up our minds which tag to prefer, or to check
> if we should use two of them, I have started a table of use cases
> that would suit one ore the other tag class better, and started
> with some examples, on the Talk page.
>
> Tom Pfeifer wrote on 2014-11-05 11:21:
>
>> Matthijs Melissen wrote on 2014-11-05 01:27:
>>  > I might have missed it in the discussion, but why not simply
>>  > landuse=governmental?
>>
>> Well that was among my first ideas, hence the subject of this thread.
>> We are currently collecting the arguments for each potential tags on the
>> Talk page, feel free to contribute there or here:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_
>> features/landuse%3Dcivic#Alternative_values
>>
>> I start thinking that we might need even two tags, one for the
>> civic/municipal cases
>> and one for the govenmental/administration ones.
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Tom Pfeifer]

To help us making up our minds which tag to prefer, or to check
if we should use two of them, I have started a table of use cases
that would suit one ore the other tag class better, and started
with some examples, on the Talk page.

Tom Pfeifer wrote on 2014-11-05 11:21:

Matthijs Melissen wrote on 2014-11-05 01:27:
 > I might have missed it in the discussion, but why not simply
 > landuse=governmental?

Well that was among my first ideas, hence the subject of this thread.
We are currently collecting the arguments for each potential tags on the
Talk page, feel free to contribute there or here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/landuse%3Dcivic#Alternative_values

I start thinking that we might need even two tags, one for the civic/municipal 
cases
and one for the govenmental/administration ones.



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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Tom Pfeifer]

Matthijs Melissen wrote on 2014-11-05 01:27:
> I might have missed it in the discussion, but why not simply
> landuse=governmental?

Well that was among my first ideas, hence the subject of this thread.
We are currently collecting the arguments for each potential tags on the
Talk page, feel free to contribute there or here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/landuse%3Dcivic#Alternative_values

I start thinking that we might need even two tags, one for the civic/municipal 
cases
and one for the govenmental/administration ones.


johnw wrote on 2014-11-05 06:35:
> Thanks tom. ^_^ I was so surprised to see the info in the talk page.
> When we first talked about landuse=civic a few months ago, I wanted to make 
an RFC page,
> but, honestly, the guidelines didn't really show me how to actually _make the 
page_ ,
> and while I'm really good with a screwdriver or photoshop, wiki markup and 
conventions are
> new, so I couldn't.   This time I figured it out.

I agree that the wiki is not good in documenting it's own use.
More or less accidentally I found this page with lots of markup:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wiki_organisation
and the proposal process: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal

tom

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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-05 2:28 GMT+01:00 johnw :

> To me, governmental is more legislative.
>


governments are typically divided into a legislative and an executive
branch, plus the judiciary to control them.



> Civic implies for the citizens.  Perhaps it's just a style choice, but
> it's my preference, and goes well with the existing approved building=civic.
>


building=civic is a very raw tag, that IMHO is a step back to what we have
(e.g. building=townhall) and is merely a synonymon for the equally generic
and inclusive (hence carrying few information) tag
building=public(_building).

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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-05 1:23 GMT+01:00 johnw :

> To me, "Civic" is short for "Civic Services". Maybe I should make that
> clear. I updated the RFC page
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dcivic
>


IMHO you should make that clear by naming the tag accordingly, i.e.
landuse=civic_services
In your definition you also include "Civic / Governmental / public
institutional" so this seems to aim not only on "services" but is intended
for everything that is organized/done by the government?



>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civic
>
> : of or relating to a city or town or the people who live there
> : relating to citizenship or being a citizen
>
>

yes, I have read this dictionary definition, and I believe it underlines my
point: "civic" is too generic in meaning




we already tag residential, industrial, commercial, retail areas

City/regional/capital complexes are none of these.




of course not (well, maybe they could be "commercial" as of our definition
in the wiki), my point was that the tern "landuse=civic" (also by the
definition you have linked) would include those landuses (overlap).


>
> The above are catch-alls, albeit business is divided into three groups.
Religious was the other last missing catch-all (to me)



>

landuse=religious is another tag recently introduced which overlaps in its
current definition with other landuses that are already established.



This seems very straight forward to me.  If you want to exclude something
> from this to have it's own landuse (judicial / penal) I'm all ears, but to
> deny that there is a need for a landuse for these clearly differentiated
> Government offices in city centers throughout the entire world seems
> incorrect.
>


so this is only about offices? What about a city owned and operated power
plant or wastewater treatment plant? Or the depot of the public transport?
The depot of the public cleaning service? A public waste dump?

You are proposing to tag the landuse of a library differently according to
its type of ownership? Or is this about the operator? What about PPP
(private public partnerships)?

I am not generally opposing the introduction of a new landuse value, but it
should be chosen carefully to avoid overlap with what we already have.

Will a ministry be a "civic service"? A public school, kindergarten or
university? (You mention libraries, so I guess yes?). A public hospital? A
public museum? A post office which is run by the government? The tax
office? A prison?


Business-government-citizen-military-religion-farm-park. There's some
> mixing between them, but those are the big developed-land landuses ones to
> me.
>


No first level distinction between industrial, commercial and retail
(that's really particular, given the extremely different nature, impact and
requirements)? What about transportation (airports, train stations, road
infrastructure)? Can you expand on the distinction "citizen" and
"government"? According to the current state of the proposal both should
get the same landuse tag, or am I misreading it?

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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[johnw]

Thanks tom. ^_^ I was so surprised to see the info in the talk page. When we 
first talked about landuse=civic a few months ago, I wanted to make an RFC 
page, but, honestly, the guidelines didn't really show me how to actually _make 
the page_ , and while I'm really good with a screwdriver or photoshop, wiki 
markup and conventions are new, so I couldn't.   This time I figured it out. 

Now I can follow the guidelines better by presenting RFC pages for future 
ideas. 

Javbw. 

On Nov 5, 2014, at 2:14 AM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> Hm hm, somebody could not wait to start the page ;-)
> I went through the mail thread so far, and tried to populate the
> Talk page with some of the arguments, please add if I missed a point.
> Maybe Martin could add some arguments why =public_administration
> should be preferred?
> 
> tom
> 
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-11-04 11:06:
> 
> > I'm opposing "civil" or "civic" by the definitions you cited above,
> [...]
> > What about using more specific definitions, e.g. 
> > landuse=public_administration?
> 
> 
> johnw wrote on 2014-11-04 03:56:
>> Assembling a draft page. it is my first "draft page", so my syntax is kinda 
>> crap.
> > I will be working on the details of the proposal later today.
>> 
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dcivic
>> 
>> 
>> Javbw
>> 
>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
>> 
>>> ok, now we have 
>>> landuse={governmental|public_administrative|civic|civil|public}
>>> 
>>> For my taste, public implies much more openness than we have from some
>>> ministries, immigration offices etc, but is certainly a value to consider.
>>> 
>>> I would like to put a RFC page together towards the end of the week,
>>> so it would be nice it the other contributors to this discussion would
>>> indicate under which title we should start it.
>>> 
>>> tom
> 
> ___
> 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] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[johnw]

To me, governmental is more legislative. Civic implies for the citizens.  
Perhaps it's just a style choice, but it's my preference, and goes well with 
the existing approved building=civic. 

I've been throwing out civic for a bit, but if it was approved "governmental" 
it's wouldn't matter too to me, as long as we get a new landuse and some 
subtags out of it. 

> On Nov 5, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Matthijs Melissen  
> wrote:
> 
> On 5 November 2014 00:23, johnw  wrote:
>> Business-government-citizen-military-religion-farm-park. There's some mixing
>> between them, but those are the big developed-land landuses ones to me.
>> Civic covers the missing hole pretty well. The last missing hole.
> 
> I agree that a tag that covers this would be nice to have.
> 
> I might have missed it in the discussion, but why not simply
> landuse=governmental?
> 
> -- Matthijs
> 
> ___
> 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] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 5 November 2014 00:23, johnw  wrote:
> Business-government-citizen-military-religion-farm-park. There's some mixing
> between them, but those are the big developed-land landuses ones to me.
> Civic covers the missing hole pretty well. The last missing hole.

I agree that a tag that covers this would be nice to have.

I might have missed it in the discussion, but why not simply
landuse=governmental?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[johnw]

To me, "Civic" is short for "Civic Services". Maybe I should make that clear. I 
updated the RFC page

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dcivic

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civic

: of or relating to a city or town or the people who live there
: relating to citizenship or being a citizen


Hence,
"Services" of or relating to a city or town  ➛ government provided services to 
it's residents  ➛ Civic Services.


> This would also imply a toplevel distinction between governments that are 
> civil, those that are military and those that are religious 

Who cares what the government is. This is services to the citizens. I'm sure 
Iran and North Korea still have a tax office and a DMV. 

There are large sections of many City centers dominated by government 
buildings. 

Those complexes are distinct, The services they offer are usually monopolistic 
to the government, and deserve to differentiated.  There's no competition to 
the Tax office, the DMV, or the city council. 

> we already tag residential, industrial, commercial, retail areas

City/regional/capital complexes are none of these. 

> I don't think we should be looking for a "one tags catches all" solution

> we already tag residential, industrial, commercial, retail areas  

The above are catch-alls, albeit business is divided into three groups. 
Religious was the other last missing catch-all (to me)

These are generic landuses.  If you want to create a ton of amenity tags to 
describe the actual function of the buildings beyond this class, then that is a 
great option too. I was suggesting a civic=subtag. 

This seems very straight forward to me.  If you want to exclude something from 
this to have it's own landuse (judicial / penal) I'm all ears, but to deny that 
there is a need for a landuse for these clearly differentiated Government 
offices in city centers throughout the entire world seems incorrect. 

Business-government-citizen-military-religion-farm-park. There's some mixing 
between them, but those are the big developed-land landuses ones to me. Civic 
covers the missing hole pretty well. The last missing hole.  

javbw


On Nov 4, 2014, at 7:06 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> 
> 2014-11-03 20:13 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer :
> What about landuse=civil ?
> 
> Oxford defines as attribute "of or relating to ordinary citizens and their 
> concerns,
> as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters", and
> in law as "relating to private relations between members of a community; 
> noncriminal"
> 
> Thus it includes civil government, civil services, civil affairs, civil law, 
> civil defence.
> Thus land occupied by tax/pension/immigration offices, ministries, 
> parliaments and their subsidiaries.
> 
> It would semantically exclude military, religious, judical/prison areas.
> 
> 
> I'm opposing "civil" or "civic" by the definitions you cited above, because 
> it would mean all land excluded that used for military and religious 
> purposes, i.e. it would include residential, commercial (when there is no 
> military or church), retail (if its not a religious institution selling 
> something), industrial (if ...) etc.
> 
> I don't see this as helpful given the point from where we are starting (we 
> already tag residential, industrial, commercial, retail areas according to 
> the type of usage, regardless of the nature of the operator (military, 
> civilian, ecclesiastical)).
> 
> This would also imply a toplevel distinction between governments that are 
> civil, those that are military and those that are religious (not necessarily 
> a bad thing but might lead to strange tagging differences between countries).
> 
> I don't think we should be looking for a "one tags catches all" solution, and 
> see which tags are needed (maintaining compatibility with our current scheme) 
> and what are the best words to describe them.
> 
> 
> 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] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Tom Pfeifer]

Hm hm, somebody could not wait to start the page ;-)
I went through the mail thread so far, and tried to populate the
Talk page with some of the arguments, please add if I missed a point.
Maybe Martin could add some arguments why =public_administration
should be preferred?

tom

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-11-04 11:06:

> I'm opposing "civil" or "civic" by the definitions you cited above,
[...]
> What about using more specific definitions, e.g. 
landuse=public_administration?


johnw wrote on 2014-11-04 03:56:

Assembling a draft page. it is my first "draft page", so my syntax is kinda 
crap.

> I will be working on the details of the proposal later today.


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dcivic


Javbw

On Nov 4, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:


ok, now we have landuse={governmental|public_administrative|civic|civil|public}

For my taste, public implies much more openness than we have from some
ministries, immigration offices etc, but is certainly a value to consider.

I would like to put a RFC page together towards the end of the week,
so it would be nice it the other contributors to this discussion would
indicate under which title we should start it.

tom


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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-03 20:13 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer :

> What about landuse=civil ?
>
> Oxford defines as attribute "of or relating to ordinary citizens and their
> concerns,
> as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters", and
> in law as "relating to private relations between members of a community;
> noncriminal"
>
> Thus it includes civil government, civil services, civil affairs, civil
> law, civil defence.
> Thus land occupied by tax/pension/immigration offices, ministries,
> parliaments and their subsidiaries.
>
> It would semantically exclude military, religious, judical/prison areas.
>


I'm opposing "civil" or "civic" by the definitions you cited above, because
it would mean all land excluded that used for military and religious
purposes, i.e. it would include residential, commercial (when there is no
military or church), retail (if its not a religious institution selling
something), industrial (if ...) etc.

I don't see this as helpful given the point from where we are starting (we
already tag residential, industrial, commercial, retail areas according to
the type of usage, regardless of the nature of the operator (military,
civilian, ecclesiastical)).

This would also imply a toplevel distinction between governments that are
civil, those that are military and those that are religious (not
necessarily a bad thing but might lead to strange tagging differences
between countries).

I don't think we should be looking for a "one tags catches all" solution,
and see which tags are needed (maintaining compatibility with our current
scheme) and what are the best words to describe them.


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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[johnw]

Assembling a draft page. it is my first "draft page", so my syntax is kinda 
crap.  I will be working on the details of the proposal later today. 

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dcivic


Javbw

On Nov 4, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> ok, now we have 
> landuse={governmental|public_administrative|civic|civil|public}
> 
> For my taste, public implies much more openness than we have from some
> ministries, immigration offices etc, but is certainly a value to consider.
> 
> I would like to put a RFC page together towards the end of the week,
> so it would be nice it the other contributors to this discussion would
> indicate under which title we should start it.
> 
> tom
> 
> johnw wrote on 2014-11-04 00:40:
> > and the line between public and private is not one OSM singles out very 
> > much (is is a public school vs a private school?), but things are separated 
> > by function. and the functions are of a civic government (pnsion offices, 
> > taxes, judicial, etc). I would use
> > the word "public" or “government” but civil (opoopsite of military or 
> > company use) is a good fit, and civic is basically “for civil”, so it works 
> > well enough - and matches a pre-existing approved building subtag.
> >
> > Javbw
> 
> 
> Clifford Snow wrote on 2014-11-04 00:30:
>> 
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 4:02 PM, johnw mailto:jo...@mac.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>Civic is what I suggested a few months ago. but where the line is drawn 
>> is up for debate: what is included in this catch-all, and what isn’t.
>> 
>>I’ve tried arguing that each class should have their own catch-all 
>> landuse - eg: we have residential/ retail/ industrial/ commericial - and 
>> hundreds of different tags to properly define the the buildings that would 
>> fall into these 4 land uses.
>> 
>>I believe there is a good case for landuse=civic (name matches 
>> building=civic) to cover the basic landuse of a myriad of 
>> public/civic/institutional/state services that could be tagged with more 
>> specific amenity tags, or a new civic=• subtag - either
>>through point markers, building labels, or on the area with the landuse.
>> 
>>Let the landuse denote class, and the other tags take care of the detail. 
>> just like with residential / commercial / retail / industrial.
>> 
>>if you want to slice out a service  (eg, school, hospital, airport), 
>> that’s fine - but I think there is enough leftover to warrant another broad 
>> landuse class.
>> 
>> 
>> I just noticed that my local government uses "public" for these types of 
>> landuse. That seems like a appropriate land use for most of the usages 
>> described. Civic refers to the duties of people associated with their 
>> governments. Public refers to being "open"
>> as in the lands and buildings.
>> 
>> Clifford
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> @osm_seattle
>> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us 
>> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Tom Pfeifer]

ok, now we have landuse={governmental|public_administrative|civic|civil|public}

For my taste, public implies much more openness than we have from some
ministries, immigration offices etc, but is certainly a value to consider.

I would like to put a RFC page together towards the end of the week,
so it would be nice it the other contributors to this discussion would
indicate under which title we should start it.

tom

johnw wrote on 2014-11-04 00:40:
> and the line between public and private is not one OSM singles out very much 
(is is a public school vs a private school?), but things are separated by 
function. and the functions are of a civic government (pnsion offices, taxes, 
judicial, etc). I would use
> the word "public" or “government” but civil (opoopsite of military or company 
use) is a good fit, and civic is basically “for civil”, so it works well enough - and 
matches a pre-existing approved building subtag.
>
> Javbw


Clifford Snow wrote on 2014-11-04 00:30:


On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 4:02 PM, johnw mailto:jo...@mac.com>> 
wrote:

Civic is what I suggested a few months ago. but where the line is drawn is 
up for debate: what is included in this catch-all, and what isn’t.

I’ve tried arguing that each class should have their own catch-all landuse 
- eg: we have residential/ retail/ industrial/ commericial - and hundreds of 
different tags to properly define the the buildings that would fall into these 
4 land uses.

I believe there is a good case for landuse=civic (name matches 
building=civic) to cover the basic landuse of a myriad of 
public/civic/institutional/state services that could be tagged with more 
specific amenity tags, or a new civic=• subtag - either
through point markers, building labels, or on the area with the landuse.

Let the landuse denote class, and the other tags take care of the detail. 
just like with residential / commercial / retail / industrial.

if you want to slice out a service  (eg, school, hospital, airport), that’s 
fine - but I think there is enough leftover to warrant another broad landuse 
class.


I just noticed that my local government uses "public" for these types of landuse. That 
seems like a appropriate land use for most of the usages described. Civic refers to the duties of 
people associated with their governments. Public refers to being "open"
as in the lands and buildings.

Clifford


--
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us 
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch


___
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] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[johnw]

and the line between public and private is not one OSM singles out very much 
(is is a public school vs a private school?), but things are separated by 
function. and the functions are of a civic government (pnsion offices, taxes, 
judicial, etc). I would use the word "public" or “government” but civil 
(opoopsite of military or company use) is a good fit, and civic is basically 
“for civil”, so it works well enough - and matches a pre-existing approved 
building subtag. 

Javbw



> On Nov 4, 2014, at 8:30 AM, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 4:02 PM, johnw mailto:jo...@mac.com>> 
> wrote:
> Civic is what I suggested a few months ago. but where the line is drawn is up 
> for debate: what is included in this catch-all, and what isn’t.
> 
> I’ve tried arguing that each class should have their own catch-all landuse - 
> eg: we have residential/ retail/ industrial/ commericial - and hundreds of 
> different tags to properly define the the buildings that would fall into 
> these 4 land uses.
> 
> I believe there is a good case for landuse=civic (name matches 
> building=civic) to cover the basic landuse of a myriad of 
> public/civic/institutional/state services that could be tagged with more 
> specific amenity tags, or a new civic=• subtag - either through point 
> markers, building labels, or on the area with the landuse.
> 
> Let the landuse denote class, and the other tags take care of the detail. 
> just like with residential / commercial / retail / industrial.
> 
> if you want to slice out a service  (eg, school, hospital, airport), that’s 
> fine - but I think there is enough leftover to warrant another broad landuse 
> class.
> 
> I just noticed that my local government uses "public" for these types of 
> landuse. That seems like a appropriate land use for most of the usages 
> described. Civic refers to the duties of people associated with their 
> governments. Public refers to being "open" as in the lands and buildings. 
> 
> Clifford
> 
> 
> -- 
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us 
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> ___
> 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] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Clifford Snow]

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 4:02 PM, johnw  wrote:

> Civic is what I suggested a few months ago. but where the line is drawn is
> up for debate: what is included in this catch-all, and what isn’t.
>
> I’ve tried arguing that each class should have their own catch-all landuse
> - eg: we have residential/ retail/ industrial/ commericial - and hundreds
> of different tags to properly define the the buildings that would fall into
> these 4 land uses.
>
> I believe there is a good case for landuse=civic (name matches
> building=civic) to cover the basic landuse of a myriad of
> public/civic/institutional/state services that could be tagged with more
> specific amenity tags, or a new civic=• subtag - either through point
> markers, building labels, or on the area with the landuse.
>
> Let the landuse denote class, and the other tags take care of the detail.
> just like with residential / commercial / retail / industrial.
>
> if you want to slice out a service  (eg, school, hospital, airport),
> that’s fine - but I think there is enough leftover to warrant another broad
> landuse class.
>

I just noticed that my local government uses "public" for these types of
landuse. That seems like a appropriate land use for most of the usages
described. Civic refers to the duties of people associated with their
governments. Public refers to being "open" as in the lands and buildings.

Clifford


-- 
@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] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[johnw]

Civic is what I suggested a few months ago. but where the line is drawn is up 
for debate: what is included in this catch-all, and what isn’t. 

I’ve tried arguing that each class should have their own catch-all landuse - 
eg: we have residential/ retail/ industrial/ commericial - and hundreds of 
different tags to properly define the the buildings that would fall into these 
4 land uses. 

I believe there is a good case for landuse=civic (name matches building=civic) 
to cover the basic landuse of a myriad of public/civic/institutional/state 
services that could be tagged with more specific amenity tags, or a new civic=• 
subtag - either through point markers, building labels, or on the area with the 
landuse. 

Let the landuse denote class, and the other tags take care of the detail. just 
like with residential / commercial / retail / industrial. 

if you want to slice out a service  (eg, school, hospital, airport), that’s 
fine - but I think there is enough leftover to warrant another broad landuse 
class. 


John


> On Nov 4, 2014, at 4:13 AM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
> 
> So far we have discussed pros and cons of
> landuse={governmental|public_administrative|civic}
> 
> What about landuse=civil ?
> 
> Oxford defines as attribute "of or relating to ordinary citizens and their 
> concerns,
> as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters", and
> in law as "relating to private relations between members of a community; 
> noncriminal"
> 
> Thus it includes civil government, civil services, civil affairs, civil law, 
> civil defence.
> Thus land occupied by tax/pension/immigration offices, ministries, 
> parliaments and their subsidiaries.
> 
> It would semantically exclude military, religious, judical/prison areas.
> By tag definition we can clarify that we want to exclude emergency services,
> hospitals, educational institutions which are not exclusively provided by the 
> state.
> 
> I'm not sure yet if it should include embassies, or not, as they refer to a 
> foreign
> state, in contrast to 'civil' implying 'domestic, interior, home, national'. 
> But
> as in amenity={hospital|school}, amenity=embassy can be applied to an area 
> without hassle.
> 
> tom
> 
> John Willis wrote on 2014-10-07 23:47:
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On Oct 7, 2014, at 10:08 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 2014-10-07 14:57 GMT+02:00 johnw :
>>> 
>>>For example, I'm a foreign resident in Japan. I have to visit the 
>>> regional offices to renew my visa every year or so. It's always a busy 
>>> place people have to find. It's not at the city hall, the airport or a 
>>> border - but it is a really important
>>>government office building that needs to labeled differently than a 
>>> standard office building.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I agree that it would be desirable to have more detail on government 
>>> offices, e.g. being able to distinguish the tax office from the immigration 
>>> office etc. I'd see this under the office tag and not in "landuse".
>> 
>> I don't want to add any detail through the landuse - beyond tagging their 
>> land. A single tag that can be used to marking the land for all of these 
>> services seems pretty straightforward.
>> 
>> 
>>> This is an enormous pile of work to do, as there are many different kind of 
>>> these, and the detailed structure is different in every country.
>> 
>> This is why a single landuse that is an umbrella for these services is an 
>> easy solution - it separates out the government services, but leaves the 
>> function tagging to other schemes, like landuse=retail tells you nothing 
>> about what is sold - just that
>> "something" is sold there.
>> 
>> I view these buildings as a completely separate class of buildings - so I 
>> want a new major landuse class, just as an industrial plant and a mall are 
>> big, but viewed and tagged with a different land use. A regional capital 
>> building is a similar size, and
>> similarly in a different class than existing landuse values.
>> 
>> 
>> A seperate subtag, where all the different building definitions can be put 
>> (beyond the ones already existing) or just more definitions thrown into 
>> amenity - either way I'm okay with it - but they all need a distinct landuse 
>> to sit on.
>> 
>> 
>>> On the other hand, the idea of having a wastewater plant, a fire station, a 
>>> court and a federal ministry categorized the same civic landuse doesn't 
>>> seem very appealing to me.
>> 
>> If you want to slice out emergency services (police/fire) and judicial, 
>> that's fine.  Give them their own umbrella landuses, and let the existing 
>> tagging scheme describe their function,
>> 
>> The wastewater treatment plant is still industrial - as is the incinerator, 
>> but the city's water board office, usually part of the city's main office, 
>> would be civic.  To me, civic is a shortening of civic administration.
>> 
>> We recognize places that provide services to citizens or offices of those 
>> services directly wi

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Tom Pfeifer]

So far we have discussed pros and cons of
landuse={governmental|public_administrative|civic}

What about landuse=civil ?

Oxford defines as attribute "of or relating to ordinary citizens and their 
concerns,
as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters", and
in law as "relating to private relations between members of a community; 
noncriminal"

Thus it includes civil government, civil services, civil affairs, civil law, 
civil defence.
Thus land occupied by tax/pension/immigration offices, ministries, parliaments 
and their subsidiaries.

It would semantically exclude military, religious, judical/prison areas.
By tag definition we can clarify that we want to exclude emergency services,
hospitals, educational institutions which are not exclusively provided by the 
state.

I'm not sure yet if it should include embassies, or not, as they refer to a 
foreign
state, in contrast to 'civil' implying 'domestic, interior, home, national'. But
as in amenity={hospital|school}, amenity=embassy can be applied to an area 
without hassle.

tom

John Willis wrote on 2014-10-07 23:47:



Sent from my iPad

On Oct 7, 2014, at 10:08 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:



2014-10-07 14:57 GMT+02:00 johnw :

For example, I'm a foreign resident in Japan. I have to visit the regional 
offices to renew my visa every year or so. It's always a busy place people have 
to find. It's not at the city hall, the airport or a border - but it is a 
really important
government office building that needs to labeled differently than a 
standard office building.



I agree that it would be desirable to have more detail on government offices, e.g. being 
able to distinguish the tax office from the immigration office etc. I'd see this under 
the office tag and not in "landuse".


I don't want to add any detail through the landuse - beyond tagging their land. 
A single tag that can be used to marking the land for all of these services 
seems pretty straightforward.



This is an enormous pile of work to do, as there are many different kind of 
these, and the detailed structure is different in every country.


This is why a single landuse that is an umbrella for these services is an easy 
solution - it separates out the government services, but leaves the function 
tagging to other schemes, like landuse=retail tells you nothing about what is 
sold - just that
"something" is sold there.

I view these buildings as a completely separate class of buildings - so I want 
a new major landuse class, just as an industrial plant and a mall are big, but 
viewed and tagged with a different land use. A regional capital building is a 
similar size, and
similarly in a different class than existing landuse values.


A seperate subtag, where all the different building definitions can be put 
(beyond the ones already existing) or just more definitions thrown into amenity 
- either way I'm okay with it - but they all need a distinct landuse to sit on.



On the other hand, the idea of having a wastewater plant, a fire station, a 
court and a federal ministry categorized the same civic landuse doesn't seem 
very appealing to me.


If you want to slice out emergency services (police/fire) and judicial, that's 
fine.  Give them their own umbrella landuses, and let the existing tagging 
scheme describe their function,

The wastewater treatment plant is still industrial - as is the incinerator, but 
the city's water board office, usually part of the city's main office, would be 
civic.  To me, civic is a shortening of civic administration.

We recognize places that provide services to citizens or offices of those 
services directly with separate tags - there are tags for community centers, 
rec centers, city halls, dmvs, and other places that the public visit regularly 
that are part of the
civil government (not military) - but there is no good landuse for them, as 
there is for industrial/retail/commercial. There are several classes of 
buildings still without seperate tags - ones that get their own label on the 
map, a guidepost on the road,
and are visited by the public as frequently as a trip to city hall - but no tag 
labels them yet (tax/pension/immigration/etc). I want to show their class 
through a landuse, and their function with some other tag.


I believe that "civic" might be too generic (but maybe I just don't understand 
this right, hence the question for what is included and excluded).



Questions always help me clarify my thinking, and understand yours as well. 
Thank you for the questions. My idea right now is an umbrella landuse for these 
offices/services that don't fit in commercial, and a separate subtag/additional 
amenity tags for
function, however people want to do that.



cheers,
Martin


Javbw


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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[John Willis]

Sent from my iPad

> On Oct 7, 2014, at 10:08 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 2014-10-07 14:57 GMT+02:00 johnw :
>> For example, I'm a foreign resident in Japan. I have to visit the regional 
>> offices to renew my visa every year or so. It's always a busy place people 
>> have to find. It's not at the city hall, the airport or a border - but it is 
>> a really important government office building that needs to labeled 
>> differently than a standard office building.
> 
> 
> I agree that it would be desirable to have more detail on government offices, 
> e.g. being able to distinguish the tax office from the immigration office 
> etc. I'd see this under the office tag and not in "landuse".

I don't want to add any detail through the landuse - beyond tagging their land. 
A single tag that can be used to marking the land for all of these services 
seems pretty straightforward. 


> This is an enormous pile of work to do, as there are many different kind of 
> these, and the detailed structure is different in every country.

This is why a single landuse that is an umbrella for these services is an easy 
solution - it separates out the government services, but leaves the function 
tagging to other schemes, like landuse=retail tells you nothing about what is 
sold - just that "something" is sold there. 

I view these buildings as a completely separate class of buildings - so I want 
a new major landuse class, just as an industrial plant and a mall are big, but 
viewed and tagged with a different land use. A regional capital building is a 
similar size, and similarly in a different class than existing landuse values.


A seperate subtag, where all the different building definitions can be put 
(beyond the ones already existing) or just more definitions thrown into amenity 
- either way I'm okay with it - but they all need a distinct landuse to sit on. 


> On the other hand, the idea of having a wastewater plant, a fire station, a 
> court and a federal ministry categorized the same civic landuse doesn't seem 
> very appealing to me.

If you want to slice out emergency services (police/fire) and judicial, that's 
fine.  Give them their own umbrella landuses, and let the existing tagging 
scheme describe their function,

The wastewater treatment plant is still industrial - as is the incinerator, but 
the city's water board office, usually part of the city's main office, would be 
civic.  To me, civic is a shortening of civic administration. 

We recognize places that provide services to citizens or offices of those 
services directly with separate tags - there are tags for community centers, 
rec centers, city halls, dmvs, and other places that the public visit regularly 
that are part of the civil government (not military) - but there is no good 
landuse for them, as there is for industrial/retail/commercial. There are 
several classes of buildings still without seperate tags - ones that get their 
own label on the map, a guidepost on the road, and are visited by the public as 
frequently as a trip to city hall - but no tag labels them yet 
(tax/pension/immigration/etc). I want to show their class through a landuse, 
and their function with some other tag. 

> I believe that "civic" might be too generic (but maybe I just don't 
> understand this right, hence the question for what is included and excluded).
> 

Questions always help me clarify my thinking, and understand yours as well. 
Thank you for the questions. My idea right now is an umbrella landuse for these 
offices/services that don't fit in commercial, and a separate subtag/additional 
amenity tags for function, however people want to do that. 


> cheers,
> Martin

Javbw 

> ___
> 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] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Dave Swarthout]

I hope we can come to some sort of agreement on this topic as there are
many large parcels of land here in Thailand that serve various "government"
functions. It seems every time I notice a big, well appointed structure
over here my Thai partner tells me "that's a government building."
Irrigation and dam projects, immigration offices, local and provincial
government administration offices are so common I'm looking for a suitably
generic way to tag them without being compelled to learn the subtle details
of each of them.

I vote yes on the landuse=* tag. As for the value, either one of these
would be fine: civic or public. If we get into NGOs and the differences
between this or that government department, judicial vs prisons, this
conversation is not going to bear fruit. While I agree with what Martin
said about it being desirable to have enough detail to distinguish between
the tax office and the immigration office, I believe there are other ways
to do that already. What I want to see here is some simple, straightforward
way to tag an area that is being used for a government related function,
any government (federal, municipal), any function (tax office, motor
vehicle department), whatever.

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> 2014-10-07 14:57 GMT+02:00 johnw :
>
>> For example, I'm a foreign resident in Japan. I have to visit the
>> regional offices to renew my visa every year or so. It's always a busy
>> place people have to find. It's not at the city hall, the airport or a
>> border - but it is a really important government office building that needs
>> to labeled differently than a standard office building.
>
>
>
> I agree that it would be desirable to have more detail on government
> offices, e.g. being able to distinguish the tax office from the immigration
> office etc. I'd see this under the office tag and not in "landuse". This is
> an enormous pile of work to do, as there are many different kind of these,
> and the detailed structure is different in every country. On the other
> hand, the idea of having a wastewater plant, a fire station, a court and a
> federal ministry categorized the same civic landuse doesn't seem very
> appealing to me. I believe that "civic" might be too generic (but maybe I
> just don't understand this right, hence the question for what is included
> and excluded).
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-10-07 14:57 GMT+02:00 johnw :

> For example, I'm a foreign resident in Japan. I have to visit the regional
> offices to renew my visa every year or so. It's always a busy place people
> have to find. It's not at the city hall, the airport or a border - but it
> is a really important government office building that needs to labeled
> differently than a standard office building.



I agree that it would be desirable to have more detail on government
offices, e.g. being able to distinguish the tax office from the immigration
office etc. I'd see this under the office tag and not in "landuse". This is
an enormous pile of work to do, as there are many different kind of these,
and the detailed structure is different in every country. On the other
hand, the idea of having a wastewater plant, a fire station, a court and a
federal ministry categorized the same civic landuse doesn't seem very
appealing to me. I believe that "civic" might be too generic (but maybe I
just don't understand this right, hence the question for what is included
and excluded).

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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[johnw]

On Oct 5, 2014, at 6:57 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Il giorno 04/ott/2014, alle ore 06:58, johnw  ha scritto:
>> 
>> Usually the government services are monopolistic - courts, police, elected 
>> officials (there's only 1 mayor) tax offices, DMV, etc, whereas NGO s and 
>> non-profits are a business model to support some activity. thehospital could 
>> be run by a church, an NGO, or by the city, but it's still a hospital. A 
>> clinic. a pet hospital. maybe we need an amenity=homeless shelter? 
> 
> 
> 
> for the latter there is a social facility scheme with subtags.

Never had to tag one, so I'll have to read up on that tag. interesting. ^^

> 
> What landuse value do you suggest for NGOs?

I don't know currently - the service they offer should be the basis of the tag 
- but for the admin offices, I don't know. It sounds like it should be a social 
facility office or something, or just plain offices, as only their business 
model might set them apart from a standard business. maybe it gets jammed in 
with civic. I don'tknow enough about NGO's to know here they should go, but I 
think there are a few paces they can comfortably fit. 

> 
> We've had this same discussion some months ago. I think courts and government 
> shouldn't necessarily be in the same landuse, while for police I agree.
> I don't exactly get the meaning of "civic", can you expand on this, what it 
> includes and excludes?
> 

Well, we're all talking about the same pizza, just where to slice it, I think.

to me, we all seem to tag big "services" that are offered by the government or 
private companies based on the function - schools, hospitals, universities, bus 
routes, train lines,  etc - the services are paramount. 

But there are civil services that are offered and administrated by the 
government that usually don't have an equal - or are just "special offices" :  
tax offices, pension offices, public libraries, national post services, city 
admin (mayor, city councils), immigration offices, DMV, courts, Jails, police, 
fire dept, etc, and viewed as "non-commercial" and "government services" to 
most people.

Like schools and hospitals, if you want to cut out judicial (Courts, government 
attorney's offices) or detention (juvenile correction, work camps, jails, 
prisons, etc), or any of the others -  that's fine, another slice taken from 
the civic pie. 

I just want a tag that lets me label the landuse for the rest, since they are 
often disparate services (pension, Fire, DMV) connected by the common thread of 
city services, often sharing the same land / offices, and thought of and 
treated differently than a standard commercial area. 

For example, I'm a foreign resident in Japan. I have to visit the regional 
offices to renew my visa every year or so. It's always a busy place people have 
to find. It's not at the city hall, the airport or a border - but it is a 
really important government office building that needs to labeled differently 
than a standard office building. 

In the US, it is a "Federal building" that is regional, or a "immigration 
office" that is more local. 

Just as landuse=retail pulls together disparate services (car sales, discount 
stores, food markets), or landuse=commercial (cleaning services to computer 
consultants), landuse=civic ties these these services together as well.  I want 
a common landuse, and a separate "civic=" subtag that work with the landuse to 
label these disparate leftover services as well (goes with building=civic) such 
as civic=pension/tax/etc, but if there is another solution for the subtag, I'm 
okay with that too.


Javbw


> 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] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 04/ott/2014, alle ore 06:58, johnw  ha scritto:
> 
> Usually the government services are monopolistic - courts, police, elected 
> officials (there's only 1 mayor) tax offices, DMV, etc, whereas NGO s and 
> non-profits are a business model to support some activity. thehospital could 
> be run by a church, an NGO, or by the city, but it's still a hospital. A 
> clinic. a pet hospital. maybe we need an amenity=homeless shelter? 



for the latter there is a social facility scheme with subtags.

What landuse value do you suggest for NGOs?

We've had this same discussion some months ago. I think courts and government 
shouldn't necessarily be in the same landuse, while for police I agree.

I don't exactly get the meaning of "civic", can you expand on this, what it 
includes and excludes?

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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Janko Mihelić]

Would schools and hospitals fit into this new landuse tag?
Dana 3. 10. 2014. 20:33 osoba "Tom Pfeifer" 
napisala je:

> Dan S wrote on 2014-10-03 19:21:
>
>> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-10-03 15:32:
>>>
>>
>  I see the introduction of a new, more specific key positive, e.g.
 landuse=public_administration

>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>
>> I would have suggested landuse=civic. Looking at taginfo, I don't see
>> it in use, though there is a small number of landuse=civil already.
>> (Plus other stuff of course...)
>>
>
> Civic makes sense as well, however would that not limit the type of
> offices to
> municipal only, and exclude country government? My built-in Oxford defines:
>
> civic: "of or relating to a city or town, esp. its administration;
> municipal"
>"of or relating to the duties or activities of people in relation
> to their town, city, or local area"
> municipal: "of or relating to a city or town or its governing body"
>
>
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-10-03 20:02:
> > what about not-for-profit companies? NGOs etc.
>
> landuse=organi[z|s]ational ? [oxford allows the 'z'-spelling for BrE, but
> 's' as well]
>
> could subsume greenpeaces, red crosses, civil defence, doctors without
> borders,
> political parties, and maybe even the disputed religious organisations,
> what else?
>
> ___
> 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] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[johnw]

a few months ago I laid out the case for landuse=civic It's literal definition 
is a little restrictive, but basically all government admin and services. from 
a brance office of the city hall to the UN building. local to supranational. 

There was so much back and forth over it - do we need a voting page now?

> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-10-03 20:02:
> > what about not-for-profit companies? NGOs etc.
> 
> landuse=organi[z|s]ational ? [oxford allows the 'z'-spelling for BrE, but 's' 
> as well]

Usually the government services are monopolistic - courts, police, elected 
officials (there's only 1 mayor) tax offices, DMV, etc, whereas NGO s and 
non-profits are a business model to support some activity. thehospital could be 
run by a church, an NGO, or by the city, but it's still a hospital. A clinic. a 
pet hospital. maybe we need an amenity=homeless shelter? I dunno. 


On Oct 4, 2014, at 3:31 AM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> Dan S wrote on 2014-10-03 19:21:
>>> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-10-03 15:32:
> 
 I see the introduction of a new, more specific key positive, e.g.
 landuse=public_administration
>>> 
>>> +1
>> 
>> I would have suggested landuse=civic. Looking at taginfo, I don't see
>> it in use, though there is a small number of landuse=civil already.
>> (Plus other stuff of course...)
> 
> Civic makes sense as well, however would that not limit the type of offices to
> municipal only, and exclude country government? My built-in Oxford defines:
> 
> civic: "of or relating to a city or town, esp. its administration; municipal"
>   "of or relating to the duties or activities of people in relation
>to their town, city, or local area"
> municipal: "of or relating to a city or town or its governing body"
> 
> 
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-10-03 20:02:
> > what about not-for-profit companies? NGOs etc.
> 
> landuse=organi[z|s]ational ? [oxford allows the 'z'-spelling for BrE, but 's' 
> as well]
> 
> could subsume greenpeaces, red crosses, civil defence, doctors without 
> borders,
> political parties, and maybe even the disputed religious organisations, what 
> else?
> 
> ___
> 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] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Tom Pfeifer]

Dan S wrote on 2014-10-03 19:21:

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-10-03 15:32:



I see the introduction of a new, more specific key positive, e.g.
landuse=public_administration


+1


I would have suggested landuse=civic. Looking at taginfo, I don't see
it in use, though there is a small number of landuse=civil already.
(Plus other stuff of course...)


Civic makes sense as well, however would that not limit the type of offices to
municipal only, and exclude country government? My built-in Oxford defines:

civic: "of or relating to a city or town, esp. its administration; municipal"
   "of or relating to the duties or activities of people in relation
to their town, city, or local area"
municipal: "of or relating to a city or town or its governing body"


Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-10-03 20:02:
> what about not-for-profit companies? NGOs etc.

landuse=organi[z|s]ational ? [oxford allows the 'z'-spelling for BrE, but 's' 
as well]

could subsume greenpeaces, red crosses, civil defence, doctors without borders,
political parties, and maybe even the disputed religious organisations, what 
else?

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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 03/ott/2014, alle ore 19:14, Tom Pfeifer  
> ha scritto:
> 
> Yes absolutely. Any commercial administration can keep the commercial landuse.


what about not-for-profit companies? NGOs etc.

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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Dan S]

2014-10-03 18:14 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer :
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-10-03 15:32:
>>
>> 2014-10-03 15:19 GMT+02:00 Tom Pfeifer:
>>
>> I feel the need for a landuse tag for governmental / administrative
>> use,
>> maybe in the context of further civic use.
>>
>> We do have office=administrative and office=government but no
>> appropriate
>> tag for the land they stand on. Often such buildings are surrounded by
>> some land and often fenced off.
>>
>> not sure if office could also apply to the whole area (site) on which the
>> office building stands (similar to how this is done with other amenities).
>
>
> I'd prefer to keep the office= tag to the building, or different offices in
> a building.
>
>> Just to be sure: when writing about "administration" you are referring
>> only to the "public administration"?
>
>
> Yes absolutely. Any commercial administration can keep the commercial
> landuse.
>
>> Yes. I agree that the current practise of using "commercial" for all kinds
>> of offices seems a bit strange, at least from a German point of view. I am
>> not sure if the term "commercial landuse" is understood differently in
>> English speaking countries. E.g.
>> they do call their centres "commercial district" and "central business
>> district" while in other cultures there might be a less business related
>> term in use to articulate high density with mixed usage, but not focused on
>> business (because there are also
>> other features located typically, like theatres, museums and other culture
>> related facilities).
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_district
>>
>> I see the introduction of a new, more specific key positive, e.g.
>> landuse=public_administration
>
> +1

I would have suggested landuse=civic. Looking at taginfo, I don't see
it in use, though there is a small number of landuse=civil already.
(Plus other stuff of course...)

Dan

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

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[Tom Pfeifer]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-10-03 15:32:

2014-10-03 15:19 GMT+02:00 Tom Pfeifer:

I feel the need for a landuse tag for governmental / administrative use,
maybe in the context of further civic use.

We do have office=administrative and office=government but no appropriate
tag for the land they stand on. Often such buildings are surrounded by
some land and often fenced off.

not sure if office could also apply to the whole area (site) on which the 
office building stands (similar to how this is done with other amenities).


I'd prefer to keep the office= tag to the building, or different offices in a 
building.


Just to be sure: when writing about "administration" you are referring only to the 
"public administration"?


Yes absolutely. Any commercial administration can keep the commercial landuse.


Yes. I agree that the current practise of using "commercial" for all kinds of offices 
seems a bit strange, at least from a German point of view. I am not sure if the term 
"commercial landuse" is understood differently in English speaking countries. E.g.
they do call their centres "commercial district" and "central business 
district" while in other cultures there might be a less business related term in use to 
articulate high density with mixed usage, but not focused on business (because there are also
other features located typically, like theatres, museums and other culture 
related facilities).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_district

I see the introduction of a new, more specific key positive, e.g. 
landuse=public_administration


+1

Tom


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