On Sep 7, 2010, at 10:17 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > The problem with mixing ownership terms with building structure terms is that > you can't generally distinguish ownership by appearance, short of there being > signs stating the fact, or making inquiries. I have heard of cases where > some units in a multi-household structure would be owned by the residents, > while other units would be available for lease, or even rented out > month-by-month. Ok, makes sense. So it's best to classify them as housing:condominium ? And what about the 'shanty' value? In my state, or more specifically, in my municipality, we have ~100,000 titled(legally) properties, and about ~120,000 divided properties(squatters, ejido, etc.). Of these, about 30,000 have 'shanty' type dwellings. Most Mexicans do not finance their properties/homes/home construction... which means they spend years building them, using their wages/earnings from each paycheck, advancing little by little. New lower class neighborhoods that spring-up as a result of economy stimulation(driven in my area by tourism), usually takes about 4-5 years for those (mostly) immigrants to make the move from their shanty dwelling, to constructing a permanent cement/rebar dwelling, but this usually takes up to five years before they've finished(the obra negra/structural work including floors, walls, and roof). So should these 'shanty' homes be tagged as a 'house' just the same? And if so, then what is the current common convention for classifying construction types?
Eric Jarvies > > -------Original Email------- > Subject :Re: [Tagging] landuse=single family houses/apartments > From :mailto:e...@csl.com.mx > Date :Tue Sep 07 23:03:41 America/Chicago 2010 > > > housing:house/apartment/condominium/mobile_home/public_housing/shanty/fractional/timeshare > > here in mexico, many properties have 'shanty' structures that are permanent, > albeit cheap/easily dismantled, they are permanent dwellings none the less. > > fractionals are usually in ,multi-level/unit structures, but also come in the > form of free standing/singular structures, and timeshare are usually within a > resort/hotel, and are not commonly referred to as being condominiums per say, > but rather, as either timeshares or fractionals, and often times as suites or > villas(here in mexico). mexico has a high percentage of these type of > dwellings... how do you think the best way to tag them is? > > fractional:1/16, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 3/4(ownership percentage) > timeshare:1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10(weeks) > > Eric Jarvies > > On Sep 7, 2010, at 9:28 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > >> Other arrangements are common as well, such as duplexes (buildings holding >> two households); the same property owner owns both halves of the building, >> and the land underneath both; he or she may live in one half and rent out >> the other half, or may rent out both halves. >> >> -------Original Email------- >> Subject :Re: [Tagging] landuse=single family houses/apartments >> From :mailto:alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net >> Date :Tue Sep 07 22:07:45 America/Chicago 2010 >> >> >> At 2010-09-07 17:51, =?UTF-8?Q?M=E2=88=A1rtin_Koppenhoefer?= wrote: >>> 2010/9/8 Alan Mintz <alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net>: >>>> At 2010-09-04 09:12, Erik Johansson wrote: >>> >>>> I've taken a slightly different approach. I use landuse=residential to >>>> outline the entire related area. I then add that way to a relation with >>>> role=boundary. I add the various buildings, roads leading to and within, >>>> swimming pools, tennis courts, etc. to the relation. On the relation >>> itself, >>>> I tag: >>>> >>>> type=site >>>> + site=housing >>>> + housing={house|apartment|condominium|mobile_home|public_housing} >>> >>> >>> that's fine, but adding simply the tag >>> housing={house|apartment|condominium|mobile_home|public_housing} >>> to the landuse=residential polygon would have a similar effect. >> >> True - I wanted to be complete about it, though, so I described how I was >> doing it, since at the time I started (a year or two ago), there was no >> coverage of the subject in the wiki at all. >> >> >>>> : house is a single-family detached dwelling where the owner owns the land >>>> and the buildings on it >>>> : apartment is a multi-family dwelling where the tenants pay rent to the >>>> owner of the buildings and land >>>> : condominium is where the tenant "owns" the building (or part of one, as >>>> they are often attached like apartments), but not the land, and pays >>>> proportional rent and maintenance fees for the land and common areas. >>>> : mobile_home is similar to condominium, but using pre-fabricated housing >>>> instead of permanent structures >>>> : public_housing is generally apartments (though occasionally houses) that >>>> are owned by a government agency and occupied by low-income/disabled >>>> tenants. >>> >>> Your system is a mixture of typology and ownership. >> >> Intentionally. Sometimes, I don't believe it's necessary to completely >> dissect all of the possible features from every different angle - >> particularly when many of those features may not be discernable from a >> quick survey in person or by records. AFAIK, in the US, these are the types >> of housing available when one goes to look for a place to live - this is >> the way that they are commonly categorized by people both in the real >> estate business and not. >> >> >>> The owner situation might be quite dependent on cultur (even locally, >>> i.e. differing from one city to another). In Berlin for instance there >>> are traditionally many people in rented apartments, but you will also >>> quite often find mixed situations: owners and leasers door to door in >>> the same building. >> >> This can happen in condominiums here, too. You can sometimes get approval >> to rent out your condo. I don't think it's likely to be something you can >> see from a survey, though. It's still going to look like a condo, and be >> one in most respects. I wasn't attempting to be completely rigorous in the >> descriptions - just to try to describe what the thing is for those that do >> not know. >> >> >>> There are also people that rent a detached house. >> >> Sure. It's still a house, though. It's still owned by the person that owns >> the land, and that is not the government. Perhaps my descriptions should be >> broadened to exclude who lives there. >> >> >>> ... >>> Actually this is a really wide field, there are endless singular >>> projects and exceptions, and there are huge cultural differences:... >> >> Again, I think this is one of those times when we need to focus more on >> usability and common knowledge. I believe I have described the terminology >> that people commonly know and use. It's worked well for me in the 315 cases >> that I've mapped. I don't think it precludes creation of an extended >> tagging scheme if someone really wants to import or research the other >> information. >> >> -- >> Alan Mintz <alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> -- >> John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com >> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not >> to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > > -- > John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com > "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to > think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging