I normally plot and tag a pub building as an area. I've noticed a few points appearing for existing pubs. They may be coming from the new OSM online editing programs. On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 at 22:48, Neil Matthews <ndmatth...@plus.net> wrote:
> It's not my preferred style -- I prefer to draw the building and tag that. > I'd expect to put the name and address on the building too! > > If I tag a large area, then there's a high likelihood that it'll adversely > affect routing. Conversely tagging large areas makes the map look more > complete. > > However, if I can't rely on a rendering to help me locate a public house > (emphasis on the house :-) accurately on a map, especially at the end of a > long day mapping, then that doesn't rely help. And since I use mapnik > renderings and OSMAnd+ it's important that they work well -- especially as > that way I find other non-obvious issues. > > Schools are somewhat different in that they aren't generally open to the > public -- it's probably more important to map the entrances on the > perimeter -- as more and more schools are fencing kids in and public out. > > But maybe we should use bar to mean where you actually get served? And pub > for the whole area. > > Cheers, > Neil > > > On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote: > > Earlier today browsing Pascal Neis summary of changesets I noticed a > comment about reverting a duplicate pub node, and glanced at the changeset > <http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37749403>. > > The pub had indeed been added again (and subsequently removed). However > what caught my attention was that the amenity=pub tag had been applied to > the entire area of the pub grounds (car park, buildings etc.). A quick > query on IRC and Andy (SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this way, however rarely > with as much detail as this particular one. The general alternative is to > map pubs as areas on the building of the pub. > > The obvious advantages of mapping the entire area of the pub property are > largely to do with the immediate association of car parks, beer gardens, > children's playgrounds with the pub and thus ready interpretation of things > like access tags and resolution as to which car park belongs to the pub. > This approach is clearly less cumbersome than using a relation, such as > associatedCarpark (invented I believe by Gregory Williams in Kent). > > The disadvantages, at least to my mind, are: > > - Non-intuitive. Certainly I have never thought of mapping pubs this > way, although I can see the point. I doubt that a newcomer to OSM would > find this the straightforwardly obvious approach. > - Pubs are licensed premises. The premises licensed usually relate to > the building. > - Where do we place tags associated with the pub premises which may > apply also to other parts of the pub property (an obvious one would be > opening_hours). > - Peculiar rendering. In this case a pub icon in a car park. Even if > we fully accept "not tagging for the renderer", let's consider how we can > tell renderers to improve icon placement. Andy suggested on IRC a label > node, but this implies a relation: do we want to replace a simple node &/or > area tag with a node, an area & a relation? And then ask the Carto-CSS team > to deal with it? It seems to me that this pushes the bar too high not just > for inexperienced mappers but also those of us who have been at it for a > while. In the meantime the CartoCSS rendering will look rather daft in such > cases. > - Consistency. In general pubs will get mapped initially as nodes over > the pub building, and attributes on a node easily transfer to a building > outline + (usually) building=pub. In particular the node & area centroid > will tend to be very close. Thus the two different ways of mapping relate > to each other in a clear way. > > This issue of course is more general than pubs. For instance we map > schools, colleges, universities and hospitals as areas and place all the > relevant tags on the area. Churches & other places of worship, on the other > hand, tend to have the amenity tag placed on the building. (This makes > sense as in many cases it is the building which is the place of worship not > the grounds). Also, I certainly will map a supermarket as the building > rather than the whole area including car parks, petrol stations etc. > > Obviously I prefer for supermarkets, places of worship and pubs that the > area mapped should be the building. However I can equally see that there > are certain issues which are otherwise intractable where mapping the whole > area offers some advantages. > > One approach which would reflect my own mapping approach would be to tag > the complete area associated with the pub as landuse=retail, with a tag > such as retail=pub. This would require no more additional OSM elements than > used at the moment, and would provide for the identification of > associations with car parks etc (and would work fine with multipolygons for > pubs where the car park is across the road or otherwise removed from the > pub. > > This is an example of how as more stuff gets mapped different styles > evolve. Neither is specifically wrong or right, but it would be nice if we > could find a consistent style which satisfies most needs. > > Cheers, > > Jerry > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing > listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
