The replies are wordy, because I want to explain my thinking as much as
possible, but I think it easy to understand once you see my mindset.
tl;dr: the landuse civic_admin reflects what is on the ground for most
building/complex *landuses* better than trying to follow the legal definitions
of the mandates of the offices in the buildings - those can be defined by new
amenity= or civic= or similar tags on the buildings or points themselves.
> On Mar 5, 2015, at 11:57 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 2015-03-05 14:35 GMT+01:00 John Willis <jo...@mac.com>:
>> > On Mar 5, 2015, at 9:03 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > I have some questions:
>> > according to the proposal,
>> >
>> > "This is for complexes who's primary purpose is the citizens interaction
>> > with government agents "
>> > What do you propose for government offices which are not or rarely
>> > accessible by citizens?
>>
>> If the offices are in support of those functions, such as the office
>> buildings used by legislators away from the main hall ( the U.S. Congress
>> has offices for support staff away from the Capitol building) then I think
>> that is acceptable. What I don't want to see is this being used on
>> maintenance facilities and train yards.
>
>
> what about the pentagon or the NSA headquarters? I would likely include them
> in "civic_admin" and surely in some sort of "governmental" landuse, but I
> don't think these are places where the primary purpose is the citizen's
> interaction with government agents.
They are not for administrating/legislating the civilian population or its
programs, nor the seat of civil/national power, nor a common place for the
civilian population to interact with government agents.
Pentagon and NSA are both military. The Pentagon is military_admin at best - it
is full of soldiers and civilians working for the military, for the purposes of
the military. The only reason a citizen would go is if they have business with
the military or for a tour, just like a military base. I've fixed Macs on 3
different military bases - I was asked to come - the pentagon feels the same.
The NSA is just military without uniforms. Total military. Black ops, top
secret spy stuff on foreigners (and illegally on U.S. citizens). They are in
service of the state in the same way the military is.
The FBI might be considered civic_saftey, as they are a national police force,
in a general sense.
>
>>
>> >
>> > What about courthouses? I think it would be helpful, to define also the
>> > term "government", because you explicitly include legislative bodies, what
>> > would be seen very strange e.g. in Germany (where the term "government" is
>> > restricted to the executive bodies).
>>
>> That's an interesting distinction - the exceutive and legislative branches
>> create the law (somewhat jointly) and the judicial branch oversees its
>> fairness, or as a place, acts as a judicial center for punishment sentencing
>> or dispute settlement.
>> City hall, the mayor and the council feel more connected than the superior
>> court judge and city attorney do - usually they have offices separate from
>> city hall, whereas the legislative and executive bodies are somewhat
>> intertwined.
>
>
> I did not read the whole article, but from the beginning it seems that the
> separation of powers is established in the US, at least in the constitution
> (recent news made it sometimes uncertain if the US government was respecting
> the country's constitution in all situations, sometimes they might have felt
> too threatened by the most dangerous terrorists to be able to do so):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
Yea, at a national level there is a big legal and physical separation between
legislative and executive bodies (White House / Capitol building) - they both
have different roles, but together they make the sausage. - At a regional level
and a local level - where most of the buildings will be - there is little
physical separation either - often a city hall complex has the mayor, the
council chambers and legislative groups and the city clerk in one big building
or complex where local sausage is made. We task congress and the executive
branch with jointly creating and approving laws - and the judicial to oversee
it all - to rule is the sausage is actually a good sausage and punishment for
not eating said sausage - but they have no say in making people eat the sausage
(falls to civic safety). In other counties the executive and legislative are
even more intertwined (like Japan), where the prime minister comes from and is
elected by the legislative body. Nobody voted for Abe - but he and the
legislature make all the sausage together. Trying to legally seperate the
different sausage making jobs at the landuse level seems impossible except at
the national level - at the supranational landuse level, there is only
legislative (UN, NATO, EU, etc) as I understand it.
the courts, lawyers, city attorney, etc is usually purposefully kept physically
separate (entirely different offices away from the legislative centers), and
the reasons to go to a city hall or regional capital might be money, paperwork,
immigration, etc - but if you are going to a courthouse, you screwed up in some
legal way (even a ticket) - the facilities are very seperate, at least here in
the US and Japan.
I think civic_admin accurately reflects the situation of the landuse in real
life for most building centers, not the legal basis for where their powers are
separated. That starts to feel like ownership - and countries with functional
monarchies, dictatorships, military juntas, or blurry separation at the highest
levels further don't warrant that separation on the landuse.
We can define the different roles of different offices and buildings with the
amenity or building tags, just like with industrial.
>
>>
>> You suggested (I think, in another thread) that you would like to see
>> Judicial get special treatment, and I would like to propose landuse=judicial
>> at a later time. Courthouses and city halls are quite different to me.
>
>
> I'm not sure, but I think I'd either have one landuse for all those public
> institutions, or one for each power (government, legislative, judicial),
> mixing legislative and executive under "civic_admin" seems strange.
Government is executive, legislative, and judicial together - the military,
police and penal all spring from those (usually in between 2 of them) but the
line that landuse is often drawn by is what your role is in relation to rules
and laws and power, not the legal standing for said power.
- executive and legislative make the laws together, and then task the civic
saftey with enforcing it, the judicial to oversee fairness and punishment, and
penal does the criminal punishment. Civic_service gives back to the citizens
services that are in the law (post office, community centers, rec centers, etc,
or in specific landuse cases already defined - parks, schools, roads, trains,
and other situations where private and government become blurred.
That is how the landuses are broken down, for the most part. It is pretty rare
to see their primary uses mixed together from both a building and landuse point
of view, except in very small cities, which is why I put the clause in about
mixed use facilities.
It is very easy to define the legislative and executive side with proper
amenities or a civic= subtag inside the landuse, but as far as a class of
landuse, it seems pretty straightforward to have one for all but the biggest
national bodies - and the amount of mixed use centers may outweigh those a
thousand to one.
Often times, such as a U.S. Federal building, DMV, or other public facing
government office, it is merely the administration of government programs -
there is no legislative or executive action regarding laws - just government
employees handling immigration issues, local offices for federal programs, or
offices for national civic safety services etc - the city, regional, and
administrative are all mixed up, and deserve a basic landuse. Judaical and
penal -from a landuse perspective - seems quite seperate everywhere I am
familiar with, save for certain jails in the same building as the court (El
Cajon, CA), which is why a cascade of mixed use cases is needed - at a purely
landuse level ( not at an amenity level) - as things get blurry quick for
landuse complexes.
Civic_admin
Civic_saftey
civic _service
judicial
Penal
And there are no tags currently for those kind of common civic_admin buildings,
so later on something needs to be made for them.
>
>>
>> >
>> > I also dislike the idea to encourage people tagging stuff as
>> > "building=industrial", I think we should encourage them to be more
>> > explicit, e.g. building=production_hall, or building=warehouse, etc. (the
>> > same goes for building=retail, commercial)
>>
>> Sounds great to me. But when arial mapping, I know 100% that this is a car
>> manufacturing plant ( like Ota Subaru factory, or Niisato Mitsuba car parts
>> factory) but I know 0% about the individual buildings.
>
>
> agreed, but you won't gain much from adding building=industrial compared to
> building=yes inside a man_made=works, landuse=industrial area. For good
> mapping it is practically always necessary to visit the place and do a survey
> / know the place.
It seems to be better than building=yes, and even if I visited and looked over
the fence, I would have no idea what the hell anything is, save for the
reception desk and distribution warehouse. Espcially in Japan, where most
everything at even industrial sites is indoors, so I have no clue what the heck
it actually is, save for a drop forge or some noisy thing that I can see
through a open loading bay. Besides the parking lots, hedges, and other basic
stuff common to any large complex.
>
>> Detailed tags through more building definitions, a subtag, such as
>> industrial=warehouse or building:industrial=warehouse are totally fine with
>> me if people have the knowledge. I'm trying to explain the relationship I
>> see between landuse= and building=, and better building definitions would
>> only strengthen that connection (generic - specific).
>
>
> I wanted to point out, that just because an area is industrial, it doesn't
> mean there can't be offices, toilets, residences, shops etc. inside, and they
> won't be all building=industrial just because they belong to some works for
> instance.
>
Of course, there are offices, and whatnot. A vending machine factory here in
Gunma not only has a protected park around the outside (Sunden Forest), they
have a vending machine museum inside the main factory building you can come and
tour. But the whole center part of the donut is clearly a factory, and the sign
and the site map says it has a singular name - Sunden Akagi (plant).
I'm sure you can find errors in my tagging choices, but I researched the park
boundaries from their website maps pretty well.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/36.4666/139.2050 the park and museum
mapping is incomplete. If I knew one of the buildings was an office, I would
tag it as such.
But at the most basic level, building=industrial is for when you have a big
building at a clearly industrial site, but have no idea what exactly is
happening inside. Which is me a lot of the time.
But the whole thing is a giant industrial factory - as the sign out front says
- and a singularly named facility. The landuse=industrial should reflect its
boundaries, which is what concerns me about landuse religious, civic_admin, and
the other landuse "classes"
>
>> We have the common phrase heavy industry in inglish, and the Japanse must
>> too, as Mitsubishi Heavy industry is their name, but I have no idea what
>> then is light industry - maybe the metal stamping plant in a small building
>> the size of a house in a residential neighborhood is light industry - and
>> japan is overrun with them ( there is one 100m
> yes, with light industry I intended everything that doesn't impose
> disturbance/nuisance to the surrounding, e.g. small places like the workshop
> of a carpenter, a cabinetmaker, a metal workshop that is not too big etc.,
> while heavy industry would be e.g. producing steel or mining.
>
Interesting. I always assumed something like that, but I wonder where the line
is between light industrial and some guys screwing computers together for
custom builds. Clearly someone assembling a computer as a service is
commercial, but the company running the soldering/ PCB manufacturing machines
is at least light industrial.
Thanks again for the thoughtful responses and comments.
Javbw_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
