|
Hey there, Just started mapping areas of my town that are mostly bare. I see residences- single, stand alone houses- marked as an area that traces the building. But I also see some residences only marked with a Point labelled simply as "building". It really bothers me that the map is so inconsistent. Which designation is correct? Should I redo other peoples designations so that it's consistent? Help! Sminn |
|
I will often do a first pass of adding addresses by adding points/nodes tagged as a building. My second pass is to draw the outline polygon and then "merge geometry" (move tags from node/point to polygon and remove the point). So, in my view, there is a good reason to have building nodes. If nothing else it means that OSM based navigation apps can now look up the addresses in the area. But I view it as an intermediate step that should, as time allows, be upgraded to show the building outlines. tl;dr: Nodes are okay, though without some other information like address data probably not worth doing by themselves. Building outlines are better, with or without address tagging. 1
Note: Usually the point is moved onto the polygon, not exactly "remove the point".
(26 Jan '21, 10:59)
Kovoschiz
Maybe. I select both the point and the polygon and then use the cmd-shift-g (replace geometry) function in JOSM. I haven't actually checked to see what the result is with regards to the original node ID being used on one of the polygon nodes or not. If you actually draw the polygon using the original node as one of the vertices, the replace geometry function in JOSM will not work.
(26 Jan '21, 17:11)
n76
|
|
Your instinct is correct Tagging a node with building=yes is in fact especially unhelpful if the building outline is visible. Hopefully what you are seeing are, artifacts from a previous iteration of the aerial imagery whn the buildings could not be traced in that area. |
