Can I make a plea to keep away from using landuse polygons for this, as SK53 suggested in the original post? In town centres, pubs are often just a "shop" in a row of shops; they are therefore already in a landuse=retail polygon. Having to have an island of landuse=retail within the larger retail area so it can carry a particular tag is going to get messy, and I don't see why urban and rural pubs should be tagged differently.
//colin On 2016-03-14 11:43, Stuart Reynolds wrote: > The one pub that I plotted, I added when I was doing a couple of nearby > schools and noticed that it was missing. I used exactly the same principle as > for the schools - an outer "amenity=pub" polygon and an inner "building=pub" > for the actual building. > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389684953 > > Personally, I think that this is fine. The fact that the pub icon sits in the > garden is hardly the end of the world, and the garden _is_ part of the pub > after all. And I bet if you turned up at the location you'd be able to spot > where the pub was :) > > My opinion, for what it's worth, is that there is way too much inconsistency > in the way that things get mapped in OSM which makes it difficult to > understand the data. Country pubs, in particular, will often have car parks & > gardens as well as the physical building, and using an enclosing polygon is > surely the right way to make sure that they are all kept together - and using > a style of data that then compares directly to other amenities like schools, > hospitals, parks ... > > Cheers > Stuart > > On 14 Mar 2016, at 10:26, Jez Nicholson <jez.nichol...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 [1]. > > 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 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 _______________________________________________ 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 Links: ------ [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37749403
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
