Talk:Tag:building=police

Untitled 1

I am quite confused by https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dpolice

How building may be recognizable as "constructed for use by the police"? How it can be distinguishable from building=office building=government building=civic

It seems to me that people tag current use which would be better served by operator=* or {tag|building:use}} or by mapping amenity=police as area, with buildings within

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree, and don't like this. It's an building=office , especially police=offices !
Furthermore, this again hits the problem of why should all building=* in amenity=police be building=police , instead of the building=* they are. There are armory, barracks/dorms/quarters, garages, etc.
—— Kovposch (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

In the UK, almost all police stations will be incredibly distinguishable - especially Victorian era stations which very much have a "police station" aesthetic. Admittedly, I think more modern ones look more like generic office buildings but that's only from the outside. How many office buildings have secure prisoner cells built into them? These are custom-built buildings for the police. They therefore fit under their own tag in building. Casey boy (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

At least for modern times, that's still only a very small part of the buildings. By this logic, there would be building=bank , building=intelligence , building=military , etc, merely for having vaults, espionage & counter-espionage (also interrogation similar to police's detention?), defense infrastructure & protection, etc respectively. Together with building=military , I would simply use building=* + police=yes , military=yes , etc, if the spatial relationship being inside amenity=police , military=* / landuse=military isn't enough.
Hisotrically, I doubt whether a recognizable architecture alone justifies a new building=* immediately. Should there be building=courthouse (has detention cells too; but at least has large court chambers, unlike police's offices only) etc if they are all familiar looking somewhere?
—— Kovposch (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Isn't that literally the point of the building value? The building wiki page says that "the value may be used to classify the (architectural) type of building". I definitely think building=bank (2,500 uses), building=courthouse are valid (no significant usage with that one though) - they're often (though I agree, not always) architecturally distinct types of building. There are many old banks in UK cities that are still obviously a bank building but now house bars or restaurants for example. They could validly be tagged building=bank + amenity=restaurant. Building=military has over 6,300 uses though I'm less sure on that one as I don't know what defines a military building other than its usage/location. Casey boy (talk) 10:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

There are several questions here

1. Why shouldn't building=bank be building=retail ? Or building=retail + *=bank ?
2. Are your building=bank more building=retail + building:architecture=* ?
3. When another period doesn't have architecturally distinctive buildings, would that make some banks building=bank , and others building=retail ?

—— Kovposch (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

We're straying off-topic for this particular issue but, no, I don't think a bank should necessarily just be building=retail. That's a very generic term and we tend to be more specific in OSM tagging when we can (e.g., building=church, building=chapel, building=mosque, and building=synagogue rather than just building=religious). I'm also not sure building=retail is even correct for a bank (surely it'd be building=commercial?). I do agree, there is a significant difference between something like the Bank of England building or the former National Australia Bank building (now part of a university) and a generic 21st century bank branch in a shopping mall though and tagging should reflect that. Casey boy (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I was thinking about general-purpose building=retail getting built, and banks moving in afterwards. Yes, building=commercial can be considered.
Most churches across time at least recognizable with the cross, interior, and many commonly having gables. At least traditional mosques have domes and towers.
Banks are mostly counters, offices, meeting rooms, etc. Can the historical buildings be recognized as banks easily? Besides, it seems you are focusing on central banks and "headquarters". They are obviously grand, and may be compared to government or public buildings. Modern central banks and headquarters would be an building=office ? Central banks won't even be amenity=bank in the first place.
Looking at buildings for branches below, I can't identify what makes them unique https://ourheritagebmo.com/exhibit/laying-the-groundwork-a-brief-history-of-branch-architecture/
—— Kovposch (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The question seems to be: If some purpose-built buildings are built in a certain style somewhere at some time, does that qualify as a specific building=* automatically ever after? As I said, aesthetics seem more along building:architecture=* etc.
Worse, this will be complicated by buildings shared by polices and courts/magistracy in history. What building=* are those?
—— Kovposch (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

"How many office buildings have secure prisoner cells built into them? These are custom-built buildings for the police." - this is not really relevant - you could add prisoner cells and it would not change architecture of a building, it still would be be building=office Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Semi-related comparison: In some countries (eg Singapore, Israel), buildings are required to have bomb shelters built inside. That doesn't change the building=* inherently. Kovposch (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC)