Talk:Tag:building=train station

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Train station tagging : new section --Masaki123(talk) 19 January 2018

Present use

"Station buildings, which now have a different use should not be tagged with building=train_station" was added here. Why? The values of the building key generally refer to the intended use when the building was built -- note the recurring phrase "a building that was built as". If the building has not been comprehensively rebuilt since it functioned as a railway station, it should still be tagged as building=train_station. It should not be tagged as railway=station or public_transport=station, but those are separate tags for a reason. //Essin (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Since station buildings are rendered in a darker color, it would not be that good if building=train_station furthermore be used. But maybe someone else can write something about it.--geozeisig (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
If it's a rendering issue rather than a tagging issue, it would be better to propose a change at Github. This change effectively redefined the tag without previous discussion. One argument for the current rendering (which I think has been made by other people before me) is that stations that have ceased to function as such would still often be prominent buildings in prominent locations, especially in smaller communities, and therefore useful for orientation. //Essin (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
"would still often be prominent buildings in prominent locations, especially in smaller communities, and therefore useful for orientation" - AFAIK what was the reasoning for this change Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I thought I had seen the motivation somewhere, but I couldn't find it when I looked for it earlier. //Essin (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep station buildings separate from railway=station

There can be multiple station buildings. They can often have different names, & be many metres away from each other (such as the London Underground)--DaveF63 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Buildings should be mapped as polygons

Mapping buildings as nodes should be discouraged & large buildings may need to be mapped as a multi polygons, so i propose to cross off the node icon & uncross the relation. --DaveF63 (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

mapping as nodes is discouraged, but acceptable. multipolygons are areas (special case of relation) and it is marked as acceptable Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
In the icon box in the right hand side panel, relations has a red line through it indicating it shouldn't be used. This is incorrect.--DaveF63 (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Because multipolygons and closed ways representing areas are treated specially. "closed way representing an area and multipolygons" are handled via areas. relation is for "relations, except multipolygons" (yes it is confusing - proper area type in OSM would be nice thing, sadly noone is working at this moment or willing to fund such work) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry but "relation is for "relations, except multipolygons" " is just wrong. < note Relations of type multipolygon. Please explain what is wrong with: - "onRelation: yes if the feature being described is suitable for use on (non-multipolygon) relation elements, no otherwise". Note that this template has onArea field, and in OSM areas are specified as closed ways and multipolygons Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)