Combine Building and two nodes to one

Help and support
1

Hello,
I am seeing one business showing up in three ways today on OSM:

These are all one business in this one building. I would like to combine those and wanted to ask

  1. whether there is any downside in me doing this?
  2. whether it is right to add all tags from the nodes to the building and delete the nodes?

This would be the first bigger change and deletion from my side, therefore, I wanted to get some feedback first.

Best,
David

2

Currently three types of “amenity” are represented: boat sharing, boat rental, bicycle rental.

What is your proposal to combine these?

1 Like
3

Good question.
This business is offering

  • boat rental
  • bicycle rental

The boat sharing tag is incorrect.

4

Hi David, welcome to the forum.

According to the rule 1 feature = 1 OSM element a single rental shop should not be represented by 2 nodes, whereas it is always good, to keep the building separated from the shop operated there.

So in your case the building could remain as separate object without any shop tags attached to it, just building=retail (which fits better than commercial imo) + the address tags.

The rental shops are actually separated from each other because they are mapped as amenity=*_rental and one node can only have 1 amenity tag. In the given case you could map a node within the area of the building and tag it as

shop=rental
amenity=bicycle_rental;boat_rental
name=FreizeitCenter
phone=*
website=*
opening_hours=*

another option would be

shop=rental
rental=bicycle;boat
name=FreizeitCenter
phone=*
website=*
opening_hours=*

In both cases the shop should also get the address tags additionally to the building.

5

Thank you very much for your feedback.
Good that I asked before making changes.

I suggested the changes here:

, but asked for review.

Again, thank you very much.

6

Usually with this style of mapping shops and similar POIs, tags that relate purely to the shop such as phone and website are on the shop/amenity POI only, and not duplicated on the building. The same probably applies to the name tag - a building can have a name in its own right, but I think it’s not the case here.

7

Thank you for your feedback.
Agreed. This information is redundant. Removed accordingly: