I found those shelters
not only tagged as amenity=shelter and shelter_type=lean_to (what is correct!), but also as building=hut.
I think this building tag is not only unnecessary but actually wrong because those shelters are not for residential usage.
Is it appropriate to tag lean_to shelters as “hut”? Is it necessary to draw such shelters as an area instead of a node (<10 m²)?
I agree that building=hut is not correct but I think it is ok draw the shelter as an area and to add a building=yes. However simply adding it as a node is also fine.
There are some shelters that look more like a hut than a traditional lean-to but have the same usage. Those I usually tag as shelter_type=basic_hut
Are these for ‘glamping’?
If not, what are they for?
pls see Tag:shelter_type=lean_to - OpenStreetMap Wiki
It’s more or less the opposite of glamping.
building=roof ?
There is also a building=lean_to tag, even though it’s only used 4 times.
My summary of your contributions:
shelter_type=basic_hut: no, because “fully closed walls and roof” (wiki) are not given
building=lean_to: no, because of its tautology to shelter_type
building=yes or =roof: I would prefer “roof”
According to the wiki: "building=roof is used for roofs which are open at least at two sides. "
I would just like to point out that building=lean_to and shelter_type=lean_to do not mean the same thing. building=lean_to refers to a building that was originally constructed as a lean-to shelter, but may now be used for a different purpose, such as a wood store.
Similarly, building=hotel and tourism=hotel are not the same thing either.
I took into account the last two comments and used building=lean_to.
Some doubts remain because of rare usage and its wiki page generated probably without proposal process.
and only small part of tags went through proposal process
