Tag:industrial=warehouse - OpenStreetMap Wiki says:
Tag:industrial=logistics - OpenStreetMap Wiki says:
3 Likes
industrial=warehouse seems clearly preferable for warehouses of this two possibilities
note Tag:industrial=logistics: Revision history - OpenStreetMap Wiki - just created by user Rtfm (actual username) who is quite well known for documenting personal preferences as established tagging schemes.
industrial=warehouse seems clearly preferable for warehouses, so editing that page is likely a good idea (feel free to do so if you share this opinion).
Maybe even reverting all edits made to it recently if other claims are similarly broken.
6 Likes
I wouldn’t encourage people in tagging specific landuse subclasses, we should rather provide feature tags for this kind of thing, because they are features, have an operator, a name, an address, a phone number, etc.
2 Likes
especially with a tag like industrial=warehouse since "warehouse isn’t a type of landuse. I actually got in a pretty good argument with Kovposch over that and the usage of industrial=warehouse more generally awhile back, which everyone can see from the talk page went nowhere. At the end of the day though I think the warehouses should be tagged as building=warehouse and left at that. Tagging the land around it as industrial=warehouse is just pointlessly redundant. Not to mention most landuse around warehouses is actually commercial, not industrial. That said if was forced to choose between industrial=logistics and industrial=warehouse the later is clearly the better tag. Since anything to do with “logistics” has it’s own unique issues.
1 Like
especially with a tag like industrial=warehouse since "warehouse isn’t a type of landuse. I actually got in a pretty good argument with Kovposch over that and the usage of industrial=warehouse more generally awhile back, which everyone can see from the talk page went nowhere. At the end of the day though I think the warehouses should be tagged as building=warehouse and left at that. Tagging the land around it as industrial=warehouse is just pointlessly redundant. Not to mention most landuse around warehouses is actually commercial, not industrial.
That said if was forced to choose between industrial=logistics and industrial=warehouse the later is clearly the better tag. Since anything to do with “logistics” has it’s own unique issues. At some point I’d love to see a better tag replace industrial=warehouse though, but industrial=logistics clearly isn’t it.
I want to tag an area of a logistics company with several warehouse buildings and add POI data of the company. Currently it is tagged as man_made=works, which is wrong because nothing is produced there.
I agree that landuse=industral is not the best Tag for it. Are there any alternatives?
Tag the individual warehouse buildings as building=warehouse and the landuse area as landuse=commercial. Then map the specific place where the office is as office=logistics. Or is it office=company + company=logistics? I can’t remember right now. Either way, that’s how I would map it.
I agree that man_made=works is not suitable, but I think something similar could work.
something like man_made=distribution_facility or distribution_centre
1 Like
man_made=distribution_centre is a good idea. Already used 12 times.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/man_made=distribution_centre
1 Like
I disagree. There are options like @Adamant1 listed in #6, there we dont need a nother thing, wich discribes a until now discribed thing…
He wrote “building” which is ok for buildings but does not provide the business and site, he also wrote “landuse” which is about the use of land and does not provide the feature either and he also wrote office=company company=logistics which is about administration and not about a logistics operation.
I am still convinced we need the distribution facility as a feature tag, maybe more than one.
Realistically that’s how the tag is used. No one looks at an official landuse map before tagging an areas as landuse=whatever. They just look at what kind of buildings and infrastructure are in the vicinity and tag the landuse area according. In this case, most areas of warehouses are going to look like commercial landuse. Otherwise it would be pretty easy to tell if that’s not the case because there will be factories, or shops. But most warehouses aren’t located in areas where either one is the prominent type of building.
Otherwise, your just splitting hairs over what would make a landuse area industrial or commercial, which is super pedantic and not really relevant to the conversation. Like there’s obviously going to be a building for finished products at a factory, but that’s not what the discussion or the question is about since @OSM_RogerWilco said they wanted to tag an area of a logistics company, not an area of a factory that has a warehouse building off to the side of it. So at least in that case I think it would be pretty reasonable to tag the area as landuse=commercial in conjunction with tagging the warehouses as building=warehouse and the main office as office=company + company=logistics (or whatever the tag is).
Sadly some do this, but this is not correct mapping. Forest where factory is planned but no construction started is not landuse=industrial
1 Like
|
|
- | - |
Realistically that’s how the tag is used. No one looks at an official landuse map before tagging an areas as landuse=whatever.
an official “landuse map” is likely not depicting what “landuse” is about, because “official landuse maps” (if I interpret you correctly, e.g. “zoning”) is about the admissible landuse, it is a prescription, what we map is the actual current landuse, and it could be illegal or otherwise different from the prescribed landuse. Now there are also “official landuse maps” of the current use, and looking at these will not be completely helpful either, because they might have different classes of landuse or use different granularity.
They just look at what kind of buildings and infrastructure are in the vicinity and tag the landuse area according.
landuse is about activities, less about “buildings and infrastructure”, although there is often some relation, because certain activities may require certain infrastructure and buildings.
In this case, most areas of warehouses are going to look like commercial landuse. Otherwise it would be pretty easy to tell if that’s not the case because there will be factories, or shops. But most warehouses aren’t located in areas where either one is the prominent type of building.
+1, at least for “standalone” warehouses. Factories also will have storage, both for the material they use and for the products the produce (although they aim at reducing this to the minimum, using public roads as their storage areas, distributed on trucks).
Otherwise, your just splitting hairs over what would make a landuse area industrial or commercial, which is super pedantic and not really relevant to the conversation.
clearly there is a meaningful difference between industrial and commercial landuse in general, don’t think this is super pedantic to point out.
Like there’s obviously going to be a building for finished products at a factory, but that’s not what the discussion or the question is about since @OSM_RogerWilco said they wanted to tag an area of a logistics company, not an area of a factory that has a warehouse building off to the side of it.
exactly, a warehouse for finished products in a factory will be landuse=industrial and a warehouse of a logistics company will be landuse=commercial. If I didn’t get you wrong I think we agree 
So at least in that case I think it would be pretty reasonable to tag the area as landuse=commercial in conjunction with tagging the warehouses as building=warehouse and the main office as office=company + company=logistics (or whatever the tag is).
office=* is about an office. For a logistics company, especially for the bigger ones, the administration is likely somewhere else than the warehouses and trucks, but even if there was some kind of office (and there likely will be), if most of the space is used for warehouses and loading zones, tagging the place as “office” seems a misrepresentation.
This aside, office=company with company=* IMHO is not a good tagging scheme, it isn’t defined what a “company” is (e.g. public or private? Can it be a single person (literally it cannot)?) and it is orthogonal to tags like office=estate_agent, insurance, lawyer, telecommunication, accountant, architect, tax_advisor, notary, newspaper, logistics, travel_agent, consulting, property_management, etc. etc. A company run by the government, which tag should it get? IMHO we should stick to the “office=<type of company/operator>” scheme and deprecate office=company, company=*
It is also worth to point out, that there are 200.000 office=company but only 3600 company=* so it is evident that this tagging scheme prevents people from adding meaningful details.
Cheers,
Martin
1 Like