2017-04-13 14:52 GMT+02:00 Michał Brzozowski <www.ha...@gmail.com>: > > building=* has never been about "purpose" though, it is about > architectural > > type (form, shape, function, structure, etc.). The purpose is what leads > > (amongst other criteria) to choosing an architectural type, so there is a > > link between the two, and it seems this might be creating some confusion. > > I see you saying this another time, but I doubt it's as common opinion > as you make it to appear. >
it is a long standing definition in the wiki (almost from the beginning of the building tag) and it is still there: "Buildings can simply be building=yes or use a value that describes the building typology, for example building=house, building=hut, building=garage, building=school. See building=* for a more complete list of options and have a look at what is actually used. " > > Using "purpose" for building differentiation is quite standard in > mapping (to name a few - BDOT Polish topographic maps, all the > different cadastre maps and so on. And that's how I've seen it used in > OSM, too. it is clear that in a project like OSM and with a key that is used millions of times, there will also be some outliners, but I don't think the best way is to encourage ignoring the standing definition. If you need a key for the function in a building (i.e. the current purpose), invent a different tag (although usually you already have this covered with amenity, man_made etc.). Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
