It sounds like three connected buildings,
but one building with three building:part
areas also would be acceptable
12 paź 2020, 18:52 od m...@good-stuff.co.uk:
> I was looking at tidying up a few things around my local area, and came
> across this:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.08855/-1.94195
>
> What you can see there is a building labelled "Evesham Hotel" (which is
> correct), and, just to the south-west of it, another, unlabelled building.
>
> However, look at the aerial view (eg, via the edit feature, although Google
> Maps will do just as well), and it's clear that there is a link building
> connecting the two (something which I can confirm from local knowledge):
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/52.08855/-1.94195
>
> (There's also an unmapped extension to the bottom left building, but that's
> another matter).
>
> That's because, many years ago when the manor house was converted to a hotel,
> the owners expanded the hotel by building the link to the adjacent building
> so that it's all one building internally (more of the accommodation is in the
> bottom left building, the original manor house is mostly reception, function
> and dining rooms and associated non-public areas such as kitchens and
> offices).
>
> So, how should this be mapped? Should the entire hotel, covering both
> original buildings and the later link building, be mapped as a single
> polygon? Or should they be mapped as three adjacent, but separate, polygons?
> Is there a standard way of approaching situations like this?
>
> Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
