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

Reply via email to