2008/4/18 Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I simply don't see namespaces as necessary. In this case I'd draw the > > building and label it as a supermarket, then add a node for the post > office. > > This seems a very messy solution to me. > > > > The building is a supermarket, the post office is only part of it. > > That may not be the case - I know of several buildings which have several > different shops in their own right within them, which should all have > equal status. The post office may *not* just be part of the supermarket - > it may be a completely separate thing within the building.
actually, it's neither. the building is a building, that's it, regardless of what is inside it it may well contain a supermarket, and/or a post office, but the two are different the building is a physical item, with physical properties (length, width, height) the supermarket and post office are conceptual items, with no physical properties, but abstract properties instead (operator, opening hours, produce lines) so, we create a building as a polygon, and label it 'building=yes' or 'building=warehouse' (modern supermarkets are usually very like warehouses in appearance) then we put two nodes inside it, one 'shop=supermarket' and one 'amenity=post_office' > > Other examples include things like: buildings which have both toilets and > showers within them, bus stops and post boxes that share the same pole, building=yes (area) amenity=toilets (point) amenity=showers (point) (both within building perimeter) structure=pole highway=bus_stop amenity=post_box a lot of the disputes over tagging are caused by people confusing physical items with conceptual ones; if we thought about separating them before debating a tagging scheme, things would be a lot clearer _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
