> On Apr 23, 2017, at 6:33 AM, Dave F wrote:
>
> Where appropriate I've been mapping them as 'full areas' by which I mean a
> polygon which encompasses the boundary of the property to include all parts
> such as garden, play area, car park etc.
Perfect. Landuse=retail and the rest of the i
"the more detailed the better", but anyway, the point I was trying to
make was it's not tagged with amenity=pub etc.
Back on topic: Is there any reason why the wiki shouldn't include this
tagging scheme?
On 22/04/2017 22:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 22. Apr 2017, a
sent from a phone
> On 22. Apr 2017, at 23:50, Dave F wrote:
>
> The university's & school's buildings are tagged this way. More detailed than
> 'yes', but if you've the knowledge, the more detailed the better.
university and schools are quite different, as schools tend to consist of very
The university's & school's buildings are tagged this way. More detailed
than 'yes', but if you've the knowledge, the more detailed the better.
On 22/04/2017 22:46, Jo wrote:
I would tag the building as what it is: house, hut, commercial,
appartments or simply yes. Some of the buildings on the
sent from a phone
> On 22. Apr 2017, at 23:33, Dave F wrote:
>
> Any buildings should be building=pub.
-1, any particular pub building should be building=pub. Many pubs are not in
particular pub buildings. The tag building is about the building, not about the
use of the building
cheers,
I would tag the building as what it is: house, hut, commercial, appartments
or simply yes. Some of the buildings on the premises might be garages or
sheds.
Jo
2017-04-22 23:33 GMT+02:00 Dave F :
> Hi
>
> It's been pointed out to me the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/
> wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpub
Hi
It's been pointed out to me the wiki
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpub states "Set a node
or draw as an area along the building outline." This seems a bit
restrictive & outdated, given the high zoom levels. Many pubs,
especially those out of the cities, can be fairly la
