if the number has nothing to do with a postal address it should not go into any addr:* tag. My suggestion is “ref”
2 Likes
I like that idea. ref is also used elsewhere where there are numbered things. Sometimes it even gets rendered in some renderers, as far as I understand (local_ref which seems to be some variety of ref on public transport stops on public transport renderers.)
According to the wiki:
“ref” stands for “reference” and is used for reference numbers or codes. Common for roads, highway exits, routes, entrances to big buildings etc. It is also used for shops and amenities that are numbered officially as part of a retail brand or network respectively.
this reads fitting in this case.
Maybe there should be used some refined ref? Or just ref`?
Given we move the numbers out of addr:* tags. What do we do with the names of the “Höfe”? Just name=Fichtenhof and so on, on the area (with landuse or so) which defines the Hof?
“Ref” would be possible although these house numbers are not really reference numbers. In fact I understand these numbers as some kind of address used by various users (delivery services, tourists etc.) and in many cases even the postal service although they are definitely no official postal addresses.
Moreover “ref” for these kind of buildings is definitely not renderes in carto and that is the reason why in most holiday villages (at least in Germany) the numbers of these holiday chalets are tagged as “addr:housenumber” or “name” as mentioned earlier. Apperently many (if not most) of the colleagues mapping holiday villages do not favour “ref”.
1 Like
hm, as far as I understand from the specific place concerned in the opening posting, the numbers are only for internal use there (for the groups to ease organising who sleeps where, for administrative purposes at the venue, …).
I think it is comparable to room numbers in hotels. Also there, the Pizza delivery service can deliver something ;-).
How are room numbers in hotels tagged? Could this be applied to this case?
Hm.
Until I read a withdrawel or relativation of the rule “don’t map for the renderer” I cannot accept “not renderes in carto” as an argument that things should (or should not) be done in some way (only as an explanation why people do things in some way).
For simple indoor tagging the wiki suggests ref for room numbers. Seems a bit generic, but at least it’s documented.
I consider the delivery of pizza to be a good enough reason to use a tag in the addr: scheme, but that’s the perspective of someone who has lived in a country where the postal service won’t deliver to individual houses but other services will. To me it’s still an address.
Edit: no idea how the plaintext emoticon escaped the emoji treatment in the original message but not in the quote. It’s still showing in plain text in the source.
Rooms in hotels are indoor mapping which is not the issue here.
Full acc … but this is not my argument. Actually there are lots of places of the same or similar kind (all kinds of holiday villages and resorts) which lack a widely accepted tagging scheme. Mappers start misusing inappropriate tags to achieve a rendering of certain values (internal house numbers) in carto.
Just some samples besides your Feriendorf am Eisenberg:
If we can agree on appropriate tags (like addr:unit) for those objects (which are units of a larger complex) which at the same time fulfill the desire for rendering of these values we do have a pragmatical solution and that is what I am argueing for.
I agree with @InsertUser and @Mammi71 that addr:unit would do well.
Complete address tagging (depending on the local situation) could be
addr:city + addr:postcode (if applicable)
addr:street + addr:housenumer (for the postal address of the administrative building, if applicable)
addr:place for the whole place (if applicable)
addr:unit (for the single units)
Looks good to me … 
Edit: Dunno why the links appear as big fat boxes in my post - I just entered a simple link line … must be a feature of Discourse, but I gained another badge for that … “Master of the Onebox” 
2 Likes
With “comparable” I mean for what purposes the numbers are used on site. You could think of the site as a “hostel where every single rooms equals a small house”.
If OSM makes a strict distinction here then OK!
Sounds good to me, but we still miss something:
For the given example this is not enough. We have in that case 5x the same “agglomerations” (what I called with the German name “Höfe”, → here is one of them) of buildings with the same house numberings 1-5 (+ another “agglomeration” which is different, but also has numbers 1-3). They have names: “Buchwaldhof”, “Steinsgebißhof”, “Löscherhof”, “Fichtenhof”, “Lischerthof”, and “Goldbornhof”. Those names are not postal addresses as well. We need to handle them too.
As it is now, they are an area tagged as
place=neighbourhood
landuse=residential
name=Fichtenhof
I think “neighbourhood” is misleading here as well; according to → the wiki on “Key:place” a neighbourhood is a part of an urban settlement which is definitely not the case here, and it has the following description:
A neighbourhood is a smaller named, geographically localised place within a suburb of a larger city or within a town or village
I doubt that place=* at all is correct here, because as far as I understand the wiki page all values for place= regarding places with buildings are for places where people permanently live, which is not the case here.
How do we handle this case, address-tag-wise and “place”/ landuse/ amenity/ …-tag-wise?
“Landuse”/…-wise I have no idea, but name=Fichtenhof should go there I think.
Address-wise: What about
addr:block=Fichtenhof?,
so that the complete address tagging (depending on the local situation) could be
addr:city+addr:postcode(if applicable)addr:street+addr:housenumer(for the postal address of the administrative building, if applicable)addr:placefor the whole place (if applicable)addr:blockfor the agglomeration (if applicable)addr:unit(for the single units)
Or is addr:block here the wrong thing?
(Off-Topic) Rendering of URLs in this forum (*click* to unfold):
This is some automagic of discourse, the software behind that Forum. If you put an URL on it’s own on a line, it tries to fetch a summary from the target and renders that. You can circumvent that by either using explicit markdown syntax like
[OSM way 1005054386](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1005054386)
[https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1005054386](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1005054386)
[openstreetmap.org/way/1005054386](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1005054386)
which renders as
OSM way 1005054386
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1005054386
openstreetmap.org/way/1005054386
or by putting another character on the line where the URL is, could even be some non-printable unicode character like “zero width non joiner”:
&jwnj; https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1005054386
which renders as
Way: 1005054386 | OpenStreetMap
(somehow still gets interpreted: The title of the page is fetched and the URL is replaced by the title, but at least the box is not there. To inhibit automagic interpretation explicit syntax like layed out in the first example seems to be needed.)
1 Like
I have seen the “blocks” containing a couple of houses and named as “… hof” in your opening post and believe that addr:housename would fit here if no one has an objection against that. Just forgot to include this in the list of tags. So in your sample the houses of “Fichtenhof” would have internal addresses like
addr:city=Kirchheim
addr:postcode=36275
addr:street=Eisenbergstraße
addr:housenumber= ? (is there any official housenumber for the administration building?)
addr:place=Feriendorf am Eisenberg (probably a redundant info to the name tag of the village …)
addr:housename=Fichtenhof
addr:unit=1 (2,3,4,5)
I believe this could be a useful tagging scheme for all kinds of holiday villages … what to you think?
In regard of the “landuse question” I have no doubt that the whole place requires a “tourism” tag which is alreade implicated by the name “Feriendorf”. Unfortunately I cannot find a tourism-tag representing a youth holiday village. Tourism=chalet will fit holiday villages with self-contained houses but that does not really fit here. Maybe tourism=hostel …??.. although a hostel usually is one building and not a holiday village. Any other idea?
Thanks for the detailed explanation 
Ahoj,
I have seen the “blocks” containing a couple of houses and named as
“… hof” in your opening post and believe that addr:housename would
fit here if no one has an objection against that.
You mean “addr:housename” even if it is several house?
The OSM Wiki says about it:
The name of a house.
This is sometimes used in some countries like England, Spain, Portugal, Latvia instead of (or in addition to) a house number.
I don’t see why it is applicable here.
Why do you think “addr:block” is not suited here?
Just forgot to
include this in the list of tags. So in your sample the houses of
“Fichtenhof” would have internal addresses like
addr:city=Kirchheim
addr:postcode=36275
addr:street=Eisenbergstraße
addr:housenumber=? (is there any official housenumber for the administration building?)
In this specific example, although the venue is situated on the street with the name “Eisenbergstraße”, the official postal address is
Landeshauptstadt Hannover
Jugend Ferien-Service
Feriendorf Eisenberg 1
36275 Kirchheim
where “Feriendorf Eisenberg” goes where normally the street name goes. So we could either put 'addr:street=Feriendorf Eisenberg", or maybe “addr:place=Feriendorf Eisenber” would be in this case correct?
I believe this could be a useful tagging scheme for all kinds of
holiday villages … what to you think?
I think we should arrive at something that is applicable for as many kinds of holiday villages as possible.
In regard of the “landuse question” I have no doubt that the whole
place requires a “tourism” tag
Yes, something like this. My question was how to tag the specific areas with the houses.
The whole area has forests, fields, meadow (some of the crossing the border of the “Feriendorf”), build-up areas, water, playgrounds, sport areas, … and I think those sub-areas should be mapped (they already are),
I wonder which tag to give the built-up areas.
What do others think?
which is alreade implicated by the
name “Feriendorf”. Unfortunately I cannot find a tourism-tag
representing a youth holiday village. Tourism=chalet will fit holiday
villages with self-contained houses but that does not really fit
here. Maybe tourism=hostel …??.. although a hostel usually is one
building and not a holiday village. Any other idea?
Could leisure=resort apply here?
Do we need to invent a new tag here?, e.g.
tourism=holiday_village (this can then apply to anything from a resort for scouts to a 5-star-resort) and to specify further
holiday_village=* (need to invent tags)?
Or maybe hostel is fine here, since people can also just use it like a hostel?
According to taginfo tourism=holiday_resort is already used twice.
Note that there is already leisure=summer_camp, but it seems to mean something different.
The current situation is that the whole area (defined as a multipolygon relation, it seems that inner forests and water bodies and maybe others – seems quite complex --, are made to not belong to the landuse=recreation_ground area that way) has the following tags:
landuse=recreation_ground
name=Feriendorf am Eisenberg "Günter Richta"
alt_name=Feriendorf Eisenberg
… maybe it is also fine to keep it that way, and tag the individual houses or built-up areas additionally with some hostel tag?
Yea, addr:housename is usually the name of a single house but I do not see any reason why it should not be used for a “Hof” consisting of a couple of house units. I did not consider addr:block as this is meant for a city block acc. to the wiki. Nevertheless addr:block as well as addr:housename could be useful in your case imho.
According to ALKIS there is no address or housenumber like “Eisenberg 1” in the compound and the area is labeled as “Feriendorf Hannover” (which is not an address anyhow).
That is why I understand that Eisenberg 1 is not part of the official address but just used by the administration of the Feriendorf. The postal address according to Deutsche Post is
Feriendorf Eisenberg
36275 Kirchheim
and I am sure every supplier of anything will surely find the place using this address.
The only road leading to the Feriendorf is the Eisenbergstraße and that is why I used it in the address tags - can be removed if not wanted. addr:place will do fine instead of addr:street:
addr:city=Kirchheim
addr:postcode=36275
addr:place=Feriendorf Eisenberg
addr:housename or addr:block=Fichtenhof
addr:unit=1 (2,3,4,5)
Would that suit you? From my point of view (looking for a scheme applicable for all kinds of holiday villages) it is still fine.
The whole area of the Feriendorf should have a “tourism” tag in my opinion as it includes all kinds of amenities/naturals/leisure being available for the use of the kids having their holidays there. There is no reason why parts of the compound should not get additional tags (for the swimming pond, playgrounds, pitches, grassy or wooded areas and the like) but all this is part of the Feriendorf. Compare it to the area of a school or kindergarten which is handled in the same way.
leisure=resort does not fit as it primarily features the “leisure” (every day free time activities) and not the “tourism” (travelling somewhere for holidays) aspect.
leisure=summer_camp does not fit as well as you mentioned already.
landuse=recreation_ground would be fine if the main purpose would be offering a recreation area open to the public but this seems not to be the case. According to the official website the main purpose is holidays for kids groups, school classes and the like.
tourism=holiday_village would suit best - used 48 times so far but not documented in the wiki -
this would be my persoal choice but I have zero experience in adding it to the tourism wiki page.
Btw: I do not see any reason to tag this compound as a MP. According to the KISS rule a simple polygon would do well.
Again I do not see any reason for 2 names “Feriendorf Eisenberg” and “Feriendorf am Eisenberg”. The latter has no significant difference to the first and I could not find it in any publication. Wherever you find information about it the name is Feriendorf Eisenberg “Günter Richta” and this is the official name as well.
OK, I have now corrected the address taggings of the “Höfe” as
addr:block=Fichtenhof
addr:city=Kirchheim
addr:country=DE
addr:place=Feriendorf Eisenberg
addr:postcode=36275
addr:street=Eisenbergstraße
addr:unit=5
building=yes
note=Discussion about the address tagging scheme see http://community.openstreetmap.org/t/2127, about the building type see http://community.openstreetmap.org/t/112852.
and so on. (You can check back if you want.)
I am now confused with two other things:
It is this node. There is
alt_name=Feriendorf Eisenberg
is_in=Kirchheim (Hessen),Hersfeld-Rotenburg,Kassel,Hessen,Bundesrepublik Deutschland,Europe
name=Feriendorf Eisenberg "Günter Richta"
place=hamlet
postal_code=36275
website=https://www.hannover.de/Leben-in-der-Region-Hannover/Verwaltungen-Kommunen/Die-Verwaltung-der-Landeshauptstadt-Hannover/Dezernate-und-Fachbereiche-der-LHH/Jugend,-Familie-Sport/Fachbereich-Jugend-und-Familie/Kinder-und-Jugendarbeit-der-Landeshauptstadt-Hannover/Jugend-Ferien-Service/Feriendorf-Eisenberg
(the website=*-tag beeing added by me just now).
As I understand from the Wiki, place=hamlet should be used for populated areas which I understand that it is meant for permanent population. Here we have holiday visits, and there is also a flat for the local manager who lives there part-time during the season, but I do not know if this justifies population. (And if so, wouldn’t then place=isolated_dwelling be more appropriate, since it is only 1-3 people housing there, the many other people only having holiday there?)
Or is place=hamlet correct here? Or, if not, should there be any place-tag, if so, which?
And the “Höfe” have place=neighbourhood, see e.g. here.
As I understand from the Wiki, place=neighbourhood, that actually is correct:
The tag can be used for any kind of landuse or mix of landuse (such as residential, commercial, industrial, etc.).
What do you think?
Regarding the addr:street-discussion: Interestingly, the actual website shows “K34” as the street name.
Regards!
Now discussed in Please add `tourism=holiday_village` to the wiki - #2 by Mateusz_Konieczny (dedicated page would be likely better for start)
Looking at the website and their description:
The Eisenberg “Günter Richta” holiday village in Kirchheim, Hesse, is a leisure and holiday facility for school classes, children’s and youth groups, sports clubs and associations: an ideal destination for school trips of all ages, training camps, weekends, holiday camps, youth meetings and seminars.
(Translated from German using DeepL)
Are we sure that leisure=summer_camp doesn’t fit? How is it different from a summer camp?
It looks to me like the tag might fit, as it’s a facility where young people go in groups during their summer holidays, though of course there will be some differences between Germany and the US.
1 Like
As the whole area now is tagged correct as holiday village I would believe an additional place node is not necessary but the wiki says:
A place tag should exist for every significant human settlement … regardless of administrative status, and also for notable unpopulated, named places.
None of the documented place tags really fits for a holiday village which is not permanently populated. To say it as it is the tag should be place=holiday_village (that would be my choice but will probably not be rendered …).
If you want to keep to an established tag you could use place=camp (160 x in use) which comes closer to the holiday_village than hamlet imo. But I think it is not that much important if you use camp, hamlet, or holday_village for it because the main reason for the place tag is to render the name of this place in carto.
The “is_in” tag can be removed as this is no longer required for places in Germany (confirmed by the wiki).
The same applies to place=neighbourhood for the building groups. The only reason for this tags is to be able to fix a name to those (and get them renedered as well). I’d say is is ok as it is.
In many cases a street name ends at the boundary of a village/township. Eisenbergstraße is the name of this street starting in the village of Willingshain. Hard to say if the road keeps the name all the way to the village of Raboldshausen or if the named part ends at the city limit sign and as from there is merely K34. You may find out from the municipality of Kirchheim.
Anyhow I believe there is no need for addr:street any longer when the adress is tagged with addr:place instead so it would not matter if the road has a real name or just a ref there.
Btw: I understand the splitting of the website into website:1 and website:2 due to the lenght of the adress but I think many people would believe this to be 2 different addresses (and both not leading to the target). Probably it would be more clear to use website:part_1 and website:part_2? Or add a note that the adress had to be split due to the length?
1 Like
It is not a summer camp because use is not limited to summer holidays. The holiday village is open for use throughout the year, also outside school holidays.
tourism=holiday_village is already established and some 40 times in use and that describes it best - even Deepl translates the website description with “holiday village”.
1 Like
Thanks. I’m not sure how clear the term “holiday village” is in English for such a facility. For example, Wikipedia says:
A holiday village (abbreviated HV) is a holiday resort where the visitors stay in villas. There is a central area with shops, entertainment, and other amenities. One example is Center Parcs.
But it looks like this “Feriendorf” doesn’t have much in common with Center Parcs (holiday resorts where you can rent individual lodges as a family/couple).
It might be a good idea to open a thread in the general tagging discussion forum and ask people what they would call this in English. (We are in a two-year old help thread about address tagging, so I don’t expect many other people to see this here.)
If you do go ahead and make a Wiki page, I would make sure you explain clearly what the tag is and isn’t for.
1 Like
Detail: In this case, except in winter (due to too much heating needed).
And: It also offers spaces for individuals and families to just do holidays (usually, the “Goldbornhof” is used for that).
1 Like
If you want to keep to an established tag you could use place=camp
(160 x in use) which comes closer to the holiday_village than hamlet
imo. But I think it is not that much important if you use camp,
hamlet, or holday_village for it because the main reason for the
place tag is to render the name of this place in carto.
But there is the overall rule “do not tag for the renderer”, which your
reasoning contradicts.
Why in this case “tagging for rendering in carto” should be done, what
is the exception from the rule here?
I can’t answer this question, but using the “place” tag is not my idea anyhow. As I said, the whole area is tagged correct as holiday village and has the appropiate name tag - nothing else should be required imo.
Anyhow the wiki says that every named place should have a place tag (populated or not). So what for is this place tag needed in case of a holiday village but for rendering the name? I don’t know, but if it is documented in the wiki it’s fine with me.
And to be hones, tagging for the renderer is done every day, in every place. Unnamed objects get name tags to show them in carto, man_made objects get an additional building=yes for the same purpose and so on. Is that a real problem? I’d say it is not. As long as objects do not get completely wrong tags for rendering purpose I’d say it’s ok.