Sent from my iPad
> On Oct 7, 2014, at 10:08 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 2014-10-07 14:57 GMT+02:00 johnw <jo...@mac.com>: >> 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
