Proposed features/Civic centre

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Civic centre
Status: Abandoned (inactive)
Proposed by: David.earl
Tagging: amenity=local_government
Drafted on:
Proposed on: 2006-10-19

N.B. This was inconclusive due to a lack of discussion, and so got moved to the old proposed features page. I've resurrected it to get more discussion of the following proposal... TomChance 21:19, 26 March 2007 (BST)

Local Government offices/centre

I've put this back on the table as I think the original suggestion I made is quite important. However, to avoid the ambiguity of the original proposal here is a modified one:

* amenity=local_government
* building=office
* name=Civic Centre / whatever it is called

The purpose of the amenity tag is to highlight the central offices, which citizens will need to know. For other government offices a name and building tag would suffice. This is inspired both by my own needs and by existing practice with most other half-decent maps. We could go further and denote that "this building is a local government office" but "this building is the main office for local government", which is what civic centres are in the UK.


Tom Chance suggested using the Roman Temple motif for this one, but given this is on roadsigns for museum, I think it would be more appropriate for that. User:David.earl October 19, 2006

How is this proposal different than amenity=public_building? --Cohort 11:28, 22 June 2007 (BST)

Unfortunately somebody deleted all of the old discussion, you can read it here. The public building tag is pretty useless in my opinion because it's so vague - it could mean any building that's publicly owned, or open to and used by the public. My original proposal was for tagging the administrative centres of local government, called civic centres in the UK. They're pretty handy places to know about! TomChance 18:38, 22 June 2007 (BST)
True, but why not use what's already there - something like amenity=public_building use=government? --Cohort 22:39, 22 June 2007 (BST)
I just don't like the public_building tag, I think it should be scrapped. The only sense in which it is precise is to denote public ownership, and that shouldn't be covered by the amenity tag. It just makes it hard work having to enter two tags (amenity and use) to actually convey any useful information. Much better to have a range of (publicly owned) items like amenity=community_centre, amenity=local_government, amenity=town_hall, amenity=place_of_worship, amenity=prison, tourism=information, and so on. In some cases it may be useful to clarify public ownership (e.g. with museums) but in general I think it's a very silly amenity value. In addition, there's a second important bit of data that needs conveying - where the local government central office is, as opposed to other buildings used by local government. TomChance 09:58, 23 June 2007 (BST)
If the intent is to move away from a vague category, amenity=public_building, I'd suggest being very specific, amenity=town_hall ??? This would be understood in most or all European countries and in many other places around the world. I think the key issue with this proposal is that it does not actually say what it is describing. Is it "The location of the main seat of local-level government, usually housing service offices open to the public, and often called Town Hall / Stadhus / ... or Civic Centre" or something broader/narrower? MikeCollinson 10:21, 23 June 2007 (BST)
The trouble with amenity=town_hall is that in the UK town halls are often just historic buildings, with the seat of local government actually located elsewhere. It's a real pain that someone deleted the old discussions, which make the proposal much more specific. I really meant it as something like amenity=local_government_head_office or whatever generic title you want to give it. TomChance 12:24, 23 June 2007 (BST)
I deleted the old discussion as it was off topic of the new proposal. It was all about whether the term "civic center/centre" referred to a music venue or a government building. (the diff is here: ) I apologize for any confusion this may have caused, but if the discussion made the proposal more specific then whatever specificity was added should be moved over to the proposal itself. --Hawke 22:46, 3 July 2007 (BST)

This could use some formatting cleanup so that it's something someone could refer to for documentation once it's accepted. Compare Key:access and Key:highway --Hawke 15:31, 22 June 2007 (BST)