Hi Folks,
Well I am not too sure that the correct tagging of buildings is applied at all in Australia as I can only see about 200 uses of building:use=* in all of Oz! Seems most folks use the building tag to denote current use rather than initial construction intention. I am sure there are more than 200 building adaptations across the country. I could think of several building in my state that have had second or third lives from the original intention and none have building:use tagging and there must be 10,000's across the country. I also understand that the fire station tagging will likely be much harder in cities than in rural areas where most will be a shed on a block somewhere. Also the more recent trend of combining fire, ambulance and maybe SES is also something that sort of hinders a 'generic' standard approach but nodes really help for each of these functions across a single site with combined building use. I am inclined to think that the gold standard for a standalone fire station would be * amenity=fire_station for the block of land on which it stands * operator, wikidata etc and all other details on the block rather than the building * combined with building=fire_station (if built specifically) or building:use=fire_station if its known that it was built for another purpose Sample - standalone = https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1102488871 and the gold standard for a combined facility * amenity=emergency_service on the block (no tagging for the renderer by using amenity=fire_station!) * building tags of building=government (if not specific buildings for each service) * nodes for each service if there are not specific buildings dedicated to each service and include all the operator, wikidate etc on these nodes * If specific buildings then tag the buildings (operator, wikidata etc) instead of individual nodes Sample - separate buildings = https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1102327375 Sample - combined buildings = https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1102321688 More thoughts? Cheers - Phil From: Mark Rattigan <m...@rattigan.id.au> Sent: Monday, 10 October 2022 10:24 AM To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Cc: p...@wyatt-family.com Subject: Re: Tagging fire stations Hi Phil I suspect that 'cleaning-up' these tags would require local knowledge for each location, and is certainly not as clean-cut as making sure that either one or the other is used. There are cases when only the building tag should be used, and some when only the amenity tag should be used. And others when both are appropriate. The building tag is intended for the original purpose of the building - ie, built as/to be a fire station. A historical/defunct fire station is still tagged as building=fire_station, even when it's no longer in use as such. (The same philosophy applies to building=church, even when it's no longer a place of worship) The amenity=fire_station indicates a location from which fire brigades (currently) operate. For example, the DFES Education and Heritage Centre in Perth could be tagged as building=fire_station because that was its original purpose - it was originally No. 1 Fire Station. It couldn't be amenity=fire_station as it's not used as a fire station. There are also plenty of minor RFS brigades which operate out of buildings that weren't originally built to be fire stations. As for the amenity and whether it's an area or a point - it could possibly depend on whether the facility is solely for a fire brigade. For example, my local emergency service building houses all of Police, Ambulance, Fire&Rescue, RFS and SES. It seems to have the following tags: For the building (perhaps this is incorrect though!) building=government amenity=fire_station Within this building there are separate nodes: 1: emergency=ambulance_station (for Ambulance) 2: amenity=fire_station (for RFS) 3: amenity=emergency_service and emergency=ses_station (for SES) 4: amenity=police (I thought there used to be a node tagged amenity=fire_station for Fire&Rescue, but it's no-longer.) Cheers Mark Message: 4 Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2022 20:10:15 +1100 From: "Phil Wyatt" <p...@wyatt-family.com <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > To: "OSM-Au" <talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: [talk-au] Next tagging clean up project Message-ID: <000401d8dbbe$f3cbf990$db63ecb0$@wyatt-family.com <mailto:000401d8dbbe$f3cbf990$db63ecb0$@wyatt-family.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Folks, I am looking for my next tagging clean-up project and wondered about amenity and building tags for fire stations amenity=fire_station - <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfire_station> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfire_station - <https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1mAq> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1mAq building=fire_station - <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dfire_station> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dfire_station - <https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1mAr> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1mAr This is partly in response to an issue logged for the ID editor requesting a preset for fire stations buildings. <https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/pull/603> https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/pull/603 There is already an ID preset for 'Fire Station' that uses the amenity=fire_station key/value but it did get me looking at the differences and how its been applied in Australia. There is a clear mix of buildings and amenity tagging on both station areas and buildings, and some with both tags! <https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/australia-oceania/australia/tags/amenity=fire_ s> https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/australia-oceania/australia/tags/amenity=fire_s tation#combinations Should it always be the case that the 'plot' on which the fire station building resides is the 'amenity' and the 'building' should be separate within the plot? To me, its not 100% clear in the wiki's. Any thoughts? Cheers - Phil
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
