FYI, some people will also map amenity=pub, restaurant, etc. as the area for e.g. the pub + terrace + parking space and put the address on that area (was also discussed on the GB--mailing list in order to seek a common way of mapping amenities.) Others might map this as landuse=retail.
Furthermore there have been discussions in the past to have some kind of landuse dedicated for schools, again with the purpose to have more similarity with e.g. building=house,landuse=residential. So, you can see there are all kinds of ideas and methods to tag. regards m On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Glenn Plas <gl...@byte-consult.be> wrote: > On 07-06-16 19:04, Jo wrote: >> I don't think there is a separate landuse=school. Schools generally fall >> inside a landuse=residential. >> >> It's possible to tag building=school. If there is more than 1 building, >> add an amenity=school for the school grounds. I'd put the addr >> information on those, except if all the buildings have different addresses. >> >> If there is 1 building with 1 school, I guess it can get amenity=school >> together with building=school. >> > > Duplicate housenumbers on seperate buildings is -for certain- an error, > if there are plenty of buildings in a school, then you could create a > relation and addr:* it once instead of all buildings, or map the school > grounds as per Jo's suggestion. Also a good idea is to create an amenity > relation of buildings and address that one. > > It's also not uncommon that an amenity=school contains different > addresses on the same building and even different addresses on different > buildings all belonging to the same school. It's not easy to sort this > out ... An alternative idea would be to just map the entrances and > address those instead of the buildings. > > It's still 'wrong' if there is a physical tag missing logic dictates.... > .e.g building ... In any case.. it's -sometimes- terrible for routing > and geocoding purposes due to the possible size of an amenity giving > distorted results. So far the theory... > > I tested it with geocoding and it seems to be supported though. I find > exact matches when looking for onjects that only have address > information present on amenities, so I can confirm nominatim looks at them. > > That being said, just discovered I actually mapped this myself in the > past to 'solve' multiple buildings sporting the same address data, but > also to support some of the buildings having a different address yet > they still belong to the same school. > > The way I formed my opinion is by trying to find anything on addr:* > combined with an amenity on the wiki and I remarkably didn't find > anything to confirm nor deny that idea. > > I remember mapping this school: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/205862112#map=19/50.96950/4.44678 > > Sure enough, just an amenity. In the light of about 111K addressed > amenities in the UK as Marc mentions I would think this is de facto > accepted but not well documented. > > So, I'm adjusting my opinion on this now and consider it OK instead of > wrong. > > Glenn > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be _______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
