Good_practice # One_feature,_one_OSM_element

[Hungerburg (Asa Hundert)]

There are some indoor mapping use cases. Regarding merging the POI with the outline of the building, even this adds value to the data: I for one will certainly avoid restaurants, where the toilets are in the seating area.

[dieterdreist]

@ezekielf

My practice on this topic is to generally prefer mapping a building as areas, and the businesses, amenities, or just plain addresses within as nodes. In medium to high density built up areas a building usually contains many distinct entities and trying to map them all as areas inside the building becomes very confusing and hard to maintain, especially for multi-floor buildings. Maybe in the future better tools will make this a non-issue, but for now, nodes just seem much more sensible.

On a side note there is tool support for features on different building levels (quick filter) in josm.

[dieterdreist]

@Hungerburg

Regarding merging the POI with the outline of the building, even this adds value to the data:

IMHO this would be a topology error, because the poi is inside the building, not on its perimeter. You could see this as minor issue with often little practical consequences, but it is clearly not correct, hence it should be frowned upon

[TwistedSnake]

That doesn’t sound like an error to me: isn’t the edge of the building the same as the edge of the restaurant?

[Discostu36 (Michael Brandtner)]

If you have a restaurant in a 20 m * 50 m building and buy a 20 m * 50 m carpet you should bring a pair of scissors.

[Mateusz_Konieczny]

@TwistedSnake

That doesn’t sound like an error to me: isn’t the edge of the building the same as the edge of the restaurant?

only when

1. building contains only restaurant, at least on some levels (in alpine huts dining area usually is filling only part)
2. you map kitchen/warehouse/etc as part of amenity=restaurant

[Hungerburg (Asa Hundert)]

It could be so easy: There is a building there, and there is a restaurant inside.I for one do not consider the toilets part of the restaurant, at least not from reading the documentation.

I repeat myself, but I got quoted in such a misleading way, that this seems necessary.

[ezekielf (Zeke Farwell)]

The thing about a restaurant or any business is that it’s not really a physical entity like a building. For a building to stop existing it has to be demolished. With a business, the owner can just decide to stop operating and then it no longer exists! The exact physical area of a building is clear. Not so for a business. Exactly which parts of a building are “part of the business” is subjective. Although the customers don’t go in the kitchen, it’s a pretty important to the operation of the restaurant. I see no reason why it wouldn’t be considered part of the business, but some may disagree. Maybe the restaurant has a shed out back for extra supplies. Is this part of the restaurant? How about the parking area, or the lawn and flowerbeds surrounding the building? The business owner paid for them in service of the business, so why not.

At any rate, if you represent a business or amenity with a node, you don’t have to worry about these questions. You just put the node in a reasonable spot. Of course there’s nothing wrong with using a general estimation of the area, but it is probably impossible to find consensus on what the correct area is.

[dieterdreist]

It could be so easy: There is a building there, and there is a restaurant inside.I for one do not consider the toilets part of the restaurant, at least not from reading the documentation.

If you can have a restaurant without toilets then it could require sepa assessments whether they belong to the restaurant (or if there are any), but often you have to have toilets in order to run a restaurant. IMHO all parts that are immediately required or clearly associated with to the restaurant are a part o it (including storage, smoking area, outdoor seating, toilets, kitchen, even playground…)