How do you tag a multi-function facility? Examples of multi-use facilities include, cafes that become nightclubs, resorts that include restaurants and book stores that include coffee shops. A detailed example is included below. I don't know how unique this particular establishment's concept is, but I am using it to get my thoughts in order when it comes to a single physical building containing two (or more) POIs. Here's the place in question: [Renaissance ClubSport][1]. They bill themselves as a "contemporary boutique hotel, an impressive full-service sports club, a vibrant bar & restaurant, and a rejuvenating day spa all under one roof...creating a one-of-a-kind experience." I would not worry about the spa, bar and restaurant, though they are certainly rejuvenating and vibrant, respectively. But one can belong to the sports club without staying at the hotel (I do), and one can stay at the hotel without setting a foot in the gym. Thinking from the standpoint of POIs on a map, I would like the place to show up as both a hotel and a sports club. What I did for now ([map][2]) was split the building outline roughly where the gym (plus spa, bar and restaurant) ends and the hotel begins, even though they are under the same roof. One is tagged as a **tourism**=hotel with applicable hotel schema tags, the other as **leisure**=sports_centre with an opportunity to add other tags from the schema (have not done that yet). The problem I am having with this solution is that on a map both might show up as two separate, though extremely close, POIs with the same rather longish name. That would be ugly. More likely, because they are so close, only one will show up at most scale levels - either as a result of the decision by the smart renderer, or as a result of overlap by a "dumb" renderer. Also, I had to list the same address on both objects, and that does not feel right at all. There is an additional (though not as crucial) challenge of tagging the spa and the eateries. Again, from the standpoint of someone driving in the neighborhood looking for a place to eat or drink, they might want to visit the restaurant or the bar inside the hotel/club, which are open to the public. I dealt with that issue by dropping three POI nodes (there is also a coffee bar) approximately where they are located inside the building. (The spa could be the fourth, although there should probably be a spa=yes key on the hotel or the sports club.) And, for good measure, I added a relationship of **type**=site, to which I added both parts of the building and the two pools I outlined. I ended up with a mixed solution of outlines and points. The Mapnik rendering looks quite intriguing, though not unreasonable. At zoom 17 it shows the icon and the name of the hotel and the outline and shading, though not the name or the icon, for the the gym. It also shows the icon and the name for the restaurant, which is fine. but it appears that all of the gym is the restaurant - confusing. At zoom=18, it also shows the icon for the coffee bar, though no name (which is fine), but no icon for the bar (and in all fairness, I did not have to add it since most restaurants can be assumed to have a bar; also, unlike the coffee bar, this bar does not have its own name). All I want is to capture the data properly while keeping the needs of the renderers and POI searchers in mind. Am I way off? Is there a best practice for this sort of a situation? How would you have mapped/tagged this place? One last question: what would happen - from the standpoint of data integrity and the rendered look - if I kept it as one building, but tagged it as *both* **tourism**=hotel and **leisure**=sports_centre? It's tempting, but somehow that does not feel right. [1]: http://www.renaissanceclubsport.com/home.do [2]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.582325&lon=-117.729298&zoom=18&layers=M

I don't know how unique this particular establishment's concept is, but I am using it to get my thoughts in order when it comes to a single physical building containing two (or more) POIs. Here's the place in question: [Renaissance ClubSport][1]. They bill themselves as a "contemporary boutique hotel, an impressive full-service sports club, a vibrant bar & restaurant, and a rejuvenating day spa all under one roof...creating a one-of-a-kind experience." I would not worry about the spa, bar and restaurant, though they are certainly rejuvenating and vibrant, respectively. But one can belong to the sports club without staying at the hotel (I do), and one can stay at the hotel without setting a foot in the gym. Thinking from the standpoint of POIs on a map, I would like the place to show up as both a hotel and a sports club. What I did for now ([map][2]) was split the building outline roughly where the gym (plus spa, bar and restaurant) ends and the hotel begins, even though they are under the same roof. One is tagged as a **tourism**=hotel with applicable hotel schema tags, the other as **leisure**=sports_centre with an opportunity to add other tags from the schema (have not done that yet). The problem I am having with this solution is that on a map both might show up as two separate, though extremely close, POIs with the same rather longish name. That would be ugly. More likely, because they are so close, only one will show up at most scale levels - either as a result of the decision by the smart renderer, or as a result of overlap by a "dumb" renderer. Also, I had to list the same address on both objects, and that does not feel right at all. There is an additional (though not as crucial) challenge as of tagging the spa and the restaurant. eateries. Again, from the standpoint of someone driving in the neighborhood looking for a place to eat or drink, they might want to visit the restaurant or the bar inside the hotel/club, which is are open to the public. I dealt with that issue by dropping three POI nodes (there is also a coffee bar) approximately where they are located inside the building. (The spa could be the fourth, although there should probably be a spa=yes key on the hotel or the sports club.) And, for good measure, I added a relationship of **type**=site, to which I added both parts of the building and the two pools I outlined. I ended up with a mixed solution of outlines and points. The Mapnik rendering looks quite intriguing, though not unreasonable. At zoom 17 it shows the icon and the name of the hotel and the outline and shading, though not the name or the icon, for the the gym. It also shows the icon and the name for the restaurant, which is fine. but it appears that all of the gym is the restaurant - confusing. At zoom=18, it also shows the icon for the coffee bar, though no name (which is fine), but no icon for the bar (and in all fairness, I did not have to add it since most restaurants can be assumed to have a bar; also, unlike the coffee bar, this bar does not have its own name). All I want is to capture the data properly while keeping the needs of the renderers and POI searchers in mind. Am I way off? Is there a best practice for this sort of a situation? How would you have mapped/tagged this place? One last question: what would happen - from the standpoint of data integrity and the rendered look - if I kept it as one building, but tagged it as *both* **tourism**=hotel and **leisure**=sports_centre? It's tempting, but somehow that does not feel right. [1]: http://www.renaissanceclubsport.com/home.do [2]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.582325&lon=-117.729298&zoom=18&layers=M

I don't know how unique this particular establishment's concept is, but I am using it to get my thoughts in order when it comes to a single physical building containing two (or more) POIs. Here's the place in question: [Renaissance ClubSport][1]. They bill themselves as a "contemporary boutique hotel, an impressive full-service sports club, a vibrant bar & restaurant, and a rejuvenating day spa all under one roof...creating a one-of-a-kind experience." I would not worry about the spa, bar and restaurant, though they are certainly rejuvenating and vibrant, respectively. But one can belong to the sports club without staying at the hotel (I do), and one can stay at the hotel without setting a foot in the gym. Thinking from the standpoint of POIs on a map, I would like the place to show up as both a hotel and a sports club. What I did for now ([map][2]) was split the building outline roughly where the gym (plus spa, bar and restaurant) ends and the hotel begins, even though they are under the same roof. One is tagged as a **tourism**=hotel with applicable hotel schema tags, the other as **leisure**=sports_centre with an opportunity to add other tags from the schema (have not done that yet). The problem I am having with this solution is that on a map both might show up as two separate, though extremely close, POIs with the same rather longish name. That would be ugly. More likely, because they are so close, only one will show up at most scale levels - either as a result of the decision by the smart renderer, or as a result of overlap by a "dumb" renderer. Also, I listed the had to list the same address on both objects, and that does not feel right at all. There is an additional (though not as crucial) challenge as tagging the spa and the restaurant. Again, from the standpoint of someone driving in the neighborhood looking for a place to eat or drink, they might want to visit the restaurant or the bar inside the hotel/club, which is open to the public. I dealt with that issue by dropping three POI nodes (there is also a coffee bar) approximately where they are located inside the building. (The spa could be the fourth, although there should probably be a spa=yes key on the hotel or the sports club.) And, for good measure, I added a relationship of **type**=site, to which I added both parts of the building and the two pools I outlined. I ended up with a mixed solution of outlines and points. The Mapnik rendering looks quite intriguing, though not unreasonable. At zoom 17 it shows the icon and the name of the hotel and the outline and shading, though not the name or the icon, for the the gym. It also shows the icon and the name for the restaurant, which is fine. but it appears that all of the gym is the restaurant - confusing. At zoom=18, it also shows the icon for the coffee bar, though no name (which is fine), but no icon for the bar (and in all fairness, I did not have to add it since most restaurants can be assumed to have a bar; also, unlike the coffee bar, this bar does not have its own name). All I want is to capture the data properly while keeping the needs of the renderers and POI searchers in mind. Am I way off? Is there a best practice for this sort of a situation? How would you have mapped/tagged this place? One last question: what would happen - from the standpoint of data integrity and the rendered look - if I kept it as one building, but tagged it as *both* **tourism**=hotel and **leisure**=sports_centre? It's tempting, but somehow that does not feel right. [1]: http://www.renaissanceclubsport.com/home.do [2]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.582325&lon=-117.729298&zoom=18&layers=M

I don't know how unique this particular establishment's concept is, but I am using it to get my thoughts in order when it comes to a single physical building containing two (or more) POIs. Here's the place in question: [Renaissance ClubSport][1]. They bill themselves as a "contemporary boutique hotel, an impressive full-service sports club, a vibrant bar & restaurant, and a rejuvenating day spa all under one roof...creating a one-of-a-kind experience." I would not worry about the spa, bar and restaurant, though they are certainly rejuvenating and vibrant, respectively. But one can belong to the sports club without staying at the hotel (I do), and one can stay at the hotel without setting a foot in the gym. Thinking from the standpoint of POIs on a map, I would like the place to show up as both a hotel and a sports club. What I did for now ([map][2]) was split the building outline roughly where the gym (plus spa, bar and restaurant) end ends and the hotel begins, even though they are under the same roof. One is tagged as a **tourism**=hotel with applicable hotel schema tags, the other as **leisure**=sports_centre with an opportunity to add other tags from the schema (have not done that yet). The problem I am having with this solution is that on a map both might show up as two separate, though extremely close, POIs with the same rather longish name. That would be ugly. More likely, because they are so close, only one will show up at most scale levels - either as a result of the decision by the smart renderer, or as a result of overlap by a "dumb" renderer. Also, I listed the the same address on both objects, and that does not feel right at all. There is an additional (though not as crucial) challenge as tagging the spa and the restaurant. Again, from the standpoint of someone driving in the neighborhood looking for a place to eat or drink, they might want to visit the restaurant or the bar inside the hotel/club, which is open to the public. I dealt with that issue by dropping three POI nodes (there is also a coffee bar) approximately where they are located inside the building. (The spa could be the fourth, although there should probably be a spa=yes key on the hotel or the sports club.) And, for good measure, I added a relationship of **type**=site, to which I added both parts of the building and the two pools I outlined. I ended up with a mixed solution of outlines and points. The Mapnik rendering looks quite intriguing, though not unreasonable. At zoom 17 it shows the icon and the name of the hotel and the outline and shading, though not the name or the icon, for the the gym. It also shows the icon and the name for the restaurant, which is fine. but it appears that all of the gym is the restaurant - confusing. At zoom=18, it also shows the icon for the coffee bar, though no name (which is fine), but no icon for the bar (and in all fairness, I did not have to add it since most restaurants can be assumed to have a bar; also, unlike the coffee bar, this bar does not have its own name). All I want is to capture the data properly while keeping the needs of the renderers and POI searchers in mind. Am I way off? Is there a best practice for this sort of a situation? How would you have mapped/tagged this place? One last question: what would happen - from the standpoint of data integrity and the rendered look - if I kept it as one building, but tagged it as *both* **tourism**=hotel and **leisure**=sports_centre? It's tempting, but somehow that does not feel right. [1]: http://www.renaissanceclubsport.com/home.do [2]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.582325&lon=-117.729298&zoom=18&layers=M

I don't know how unique this particular establishment's concept is, but I am using it to get my thoughts in order when it comes to a single physical building containing two (or more) POIs. Here's the place in question: [Renaissance ClubSport][1]. They bill themselves as a "contemporary boutique hotel, an impressive full-service sports club, a vibrant bar & restaurant, and a rejuvenating day spa all under one roof...creating a one-of-a-kind experience." I would not worry about the spa, bar and restaurant, though they are certainly rejuvenating and vibrant, respectively. But one can belong to the sports club without staying at the hotel (I do), and one can stay at the hotel without setting a foot in the gym. Thinking from the standpoint of POIs on a map, I would like the place to show up as both a hotel and a sports club. What I did for now ([map][2]) was split the building outline roughly where the gym (plus spa, bar and restaurant) end and the hotel begins, even though they are under the same roof. One is tagged as a **tourism**=hotel with applicable hotel schema tags, the other as **leisure**=sports_centre with an opportunity to add other tags from the schema (have not done that yet). The problem I am having with this solution is that on a map both might show up as two separate, though extremely close, POIs with the same rather longish name. That would be ugly. More likely, because they are so close, only one will show up at most scale levels - either as a result of the decision by the smart renderer, or as a result of overlap by a "dumb" renderer. Also, I listed the the same address on both objects, and that does not feel right at all. There is an additional (though not as crucial) challenge as tagging the spa and the restaurant. Again, from the standpoint of someone driving in the neighborhood looking for a place to eat or drink, they might want to visit the restaurant or the bar inside the hotel/club, which is open to the public. I dealt with that issue by dropping three POI nodes (there is also a coffee bar) approximately where they are located inside the building. (The spa could be the fourth, although there should probably be a spa=yes key on the hotel or the sports club.) And, for good measure, I added a relationship of **type**=site, to which I added both parts of the building and the two pools I outlined. I ended up with a mixed solution of outlines and points. The Mapnik rendering looks quite intriguing, though not unreasonable. At zoom 17 it shows the icon and the name of the hotel and the outline and shading, though not the name or the icon, for the the gym. It also shows the icon and the name for the restaurant, which is fine. but it appears that all of the gym is the restaurant - confusing. At zoom=18, it also shows the icon for the coffee bar, though no name (which is fine), but no icon for the bar (and in all fairness, I did not have to add it since most restaurants can be assumed to have a bar; also, unlike the coffee bar, this bar does not have its own name). All I want is to capture the data properly while keeping the needs of the renderers and POI searchers in mind. Am I way off? Is there a best practice for this sort of a situation? How would you have mapped/tagged this place? One last question: what would happen - from the standpoint of data integrity and the rendered look - if I kept it as one building, but tagged it as *both* **tourism**=hotel and **leisure**=sports_centre? It's tempting, but somehow that does not feel right. [1]: http://www.renaissanceclubsport.com/home.do [2]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.582325&lon=-117.729298&zoom=18&layers=M