Alternatively, you could can map the sole occupant of a building as a point within the building just as validly as you can dual-tag the building. A point technically loses the information that it’s the sole occupant. For something like a scout hall, it seems like a minor tradeoff for being able to express the name of both the hall and the troop in tags that any data consumer would understand. But if you don’t want that tradeoff, then the ergonomics of coincident areas are the hopefully temporary downside.
This issue comes to the fore in OpenHistoricalMap. Many tenants can occupy the same space in different time periods. Some mappers use coincident areas, some use multipolygons, and some are content with a bunch of points within the building. But no one attempts dual tagging, because the tags become too complex for both mappers and software.
Thanks, you’d think I’d get that right by now, having implemented the feature in the first place.
If you keep holding down the modifier key while alternating the up and down arrows, you can quickly select a lot of connected ways or their nodes for intensively retagging a local subgraph of the map. I use that trick for stuff like adding power=pole after mapping all the power=minor_line without having to tag each node individually.
Thanks @Mateusz_Konieczny . That helped clean up my thinking. A seperate but related question then becomes establishing a ‘relationship’ between the scout group and their scout hall. So far I’ve been using the operator tag … but that’s a different discussion.
I strongly suspect that the building= + name= combination has huge usage is because if a store or business fully occupies the building then the store related tags, including name=, are put on the building. The building may have a generally known name different from the name of the current business occupying the location. Given that situation, the building:name= tag makes sense as you might have a collection of tags like building:name=”Branson Building”, building:levels=2, name=”Joe’s Hardware”, shop=hardware, etc. all on the same polygon.
no, in situation where shop and building have distinct names proper fix is to FINALLY separate POI into a separate point or area
(personally I would do it much earlier, but expecting anyone - mappers or editors or data consumers - to handle building: prefixes is silly)
building:name is a terrible idea, does not make sense, should not be used and is a bad tagging scheme as complicates things for no benefit, makes data harder to use and proper solution exists
building:name=* is kind of the tail wagging the dog. If anything it should be shop:name=*, but better to just separate the items. If there’s a need to clarify that the tenant occupies the entire building – so there’s nothing else to map inside – then the shop can be an area sharing the same nodes. (At this point someone will chime in about a multipolygon.)
actually there are 8.1 M buildings with name but only 1.3 M with shop (regardless of names) and also 3.4 M with amenity. There are also 0.5 M combinations with tourism and 0.3 M with office. The combinations with power and historic are more likely refering to the building itself.
