This is a very interesting example; thanks for sharing it! It definitely
helps me see where you're coming from, and how this practice came into
common use.
Although it is a very ambiguous situation, I would still side on this being
a single building that just so happens to have grown slowly over time.
Although I would not disagree that they are separate buildings either.
However, your example seems like a case that is particularly ambiguous. I'm
not sure if it's totally comparable to the case I mentioned, which seems
more clear cut to me. It's a single building purpose built to contain 8
homes, all by the same builder, all in the same style. Additionally, these
homes are part of a homeowner's association, which means there are
restrictions even on what the owners can do to the exterior without
approval from the association, and large structural changes to the
buildings are not likely in the foreseeable future.
What I'm thinking is that it might be useful to have a concise discussion
of this ambiguity in the wiki page. Since it seems to be up to
interpretation, though, it seems providing different ways of representing
the varying levels of ambiguity in the real world would be useful.
--
Skyler
--
Skyler
On July 7, 2020 18:06:26 Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 22:41, Skyler Hawthorne <o...@dead10ck.com> wrote:
My own personal interpretation would be to say that if two houses share
a wall, they are part of the same building. Buildings are expanded all
the time. If a shopping mall expands a wing to give more space for more
shops, we do not say the new section is a separate building; we say the
building has gotten larger.
Copyright prevents us using Google Streetview for mapping, but we
can use it for illustrative purposes. https://goo.gl/maps/o6ribodaAqUhvak2A
That group of five dwellings was originally called Priory Terrace (the name
is not part of the address and few people know it used to be called that).
They were built at the same time by the same builder and are listed
by a heritage organization as being of significant value.
Talk a walk to the north-east (left in the image) and you will see a long line
of conjoined buildings of different styles. Most (all?) of those other
buildings
were built after the first 5, yet it would be perverse to describe
them as extending or enlarging those original 5 dwellings. They're
houses that happen to share side walls (because it's cheaper and
lets them take up less room).
I said this earlier in the thread, but I think it is still applicable:
when we're tagging shopping centers, where there is a large building
containing several shops, we tag the large structure as
building=retail, and the shops as amenity=*; we do not map them as
building=shop or something like that, because they are not separate
buildings. Why do this for houses/dwellings?
Because if you followed that Streetview walk, you'd have countered 33
dwellings in that terrace. It's nice to be able to give them addresses.
Because they're of different sizes, it's nice to show where the boundaries
between them are. This is the start of that walk:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.08572&mlon=-4.65826#map=19/52.08572/-4.65826
Your personal justificatons for your mapping choices are perfectly
fine, but that's not what I'm proposing changing. Since it is not well-
defined what to do when a terrace has a name, that is why I am
proposing the tagging scheme with a different usage of building=terrace
than what you and the wiki say,
My opinion counts for no more than anybody else's, so you are free to
disregard it. Redefining established use of a tag is problematic. To say
the least.
--
Paul
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
