From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Building=warehouse has exponentially more uses then this tag does. So, this is yet another not needed, not asked for, and completely pointless alternative tagging scheme by RTFM. Therefore, I suggest it be depreciated for the tag that's actually, overwhelmingly used for tagging warehouses, building=warehouse. Which is exactly what I'm going to do unless I hear a reasonable, coherent argument against depreciating it and why people should use this tag instead of the other one or alongside it. BTW, I looked into the tag and from what I can tell it's used completely incoherently as a replacement for other more widely tags. I'd love it if anyone can show me a real world, map based, example of where that isn't the case, it's used how it's supposedly meant to be used, and isn't used at the expensive of better more widely accepted tags. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This is about landuse=industrial, not building=*. ---- Kovposch (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Tell that to the people who are tagging it on things besides objects that are industrial landuse. Wearhouses aren't really an industrial thing anyway. Let alone a landuse. Otherwise, like I said show me an example of where they are. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
BTW, remember the Wiki is suppose to be descriptive, not prescriptive. You can say what you think the tag is about and how you think it's suppose to be used, but that's a completely different thing then describing it's actual use. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Why don't you update key:industrial with your observation (or opinion) as well then? All the wrong I see is using building=industrial + industrial=warehouse, instead of building=warehouse directly. The template here and industrial=* clearly states they require landuse=industrial. If people have been using it different, you can present both info together, without diminishing the original use. If there's a need for a warehouse feature/POI/facility not as an abstract landuse=* or the building=* itself, this can be reflected.
Alternatively, there's for example industrial=storages apparently for open-air storage, but why can't warehouse be "industrial"? Not everything has to be a man_made=works factory or process. The alternatives tp landuse=depot are landuse=industrial + industrial=depot and others as well.
---- Kovposch (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
industrial=storages only has 32 uses and there's no article. So, it's pretty irrelevant IMO. Also, how do you know what it's for when there's no Wiki article about it? Say it is a relevant tag though, it would depend on how you define industrial landuse. With these types of types of tags the place has to be industrial to use the industrial tag and there's nothing inherently industrial about storages or warehouses. It's just as likely the warehouse could be in a commercial area and it would be wrong to tag it as industrial=warehouse if it's not actually industrial landuse. Whereas, a warehouse is (I assume) always going to be a building.
Or, look at this way, landuse is a concept not an object. "Storages" is a concept not an object. A warehouse is an object, not a concept. For example, one usage that I saw while looking into landuse=warehouse was on a parking lot where cars were being stored. That is neither industrial landuse nor a warehouse. Unless your using the term "warehouse" in a purely relativistic, conceptual way. Which I don't think we should do. A warehouse is a building where goods (whatever constitutes a "good") are stored. Period. There's zero else in the definition. Let alone a presumption of industrialism being involved. Also, no where did I bring up man_made=works in this discussion and you doing so like I did is a rather useless strawman. Please stick to what's actually being discussed. The same goes for your attempts to cherry pick extremely low usage, irrelevant tags to somehow try and make a point. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Look, industrial=* is a whole mess, but this has nothing to do with its relevancy. If you problem with this is whether the area should be a landuse=industrial in the first place, then you should write on that premise, rather than telling everyone using landuse=industrial + industrial=warehouse is wrong. Your "Wearhouses aren't really an industrial thing anyway" didn't look like it is expressing the perspective that a warehouse can be either "commercial", or "industrial" as well. So thank you for making those lame accusations there. A misnamed value doesn't mean what it is tagging is wrong. If you restrict "warehouse" to be a building, many other similar *=*house values should be corrected, such as industrial=slaughterhouse. (which I could agree) ---- Kovposch (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not a big fan of "well, this other only slightly related thing is a mess. So, why not just stick to the status que and keep using this tag even though it's clearly bad" type arguments. Things should be able to be discussed on their own merits (or lack of them) without the discussion devolving into the pros and cons of 15 other only slightly related tags. Maybe that's just me though, but so far you've brought up like 7 other tags and have barely addressed this one or any of the points I've made for why I think it's bad. Simply hand waving by saying "well, all things are bad...So....Uhhh..lame accusations?" doesn't really cut it or resolve the problems I brought up.
I'm not sure what your critique or counter point to me saying that warehouses aren't industrial is because all you did is quote what I said without actually adding anything to it. So, maybe you could expand on it by providing some counter evidence to how warehouses are industrial if that's what you think.
What "lame accusation" are you referring to? I didn't bring up man_made=works. Nor did I say everything had to be man_made=works. You said it as if I did though. If that's not the case, cool, just say so and provide some context as to why you brought it up and how it's relevant to the discussion.
Re: If "If you restrict "warehouse" to be a building, many other similar *=*house values should be corrected, such as industrial=slaughterhouse." I was clear that this tag is not correct because of the definition of the word warehouse. Nowhere did I say that my judgements about it are simply because it has the word "house" in the tag. I'm not that reductionist, but the definition of words do matter when we want to use those words for tags. "Slaughterhouse" is another bad analogy on your part because a slaughterhouse is a facility. Which isn't confined to a building like a warehouse is. The fact that it involves the word "house" doesn't matter. The definition of the word and what it is in real life does. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
So why can a "slaughterhouse" be a facility, while a warehouse only a building? When one refers to any building, is there even a sure definition on whether the entire site around it is included? Superficially looking, a Google search query returns 15.2k "slaughterhouse is a facility" results, an order of magnitude less than 103k "slaughterhouse is a building". This is as opposed to the majority held by 602k "warehouse is a building", however "warehouse is a facility" still has 73.2k. The description here is "a place", for a landuse=industrial; not a "building". (Google Scholar shows both has similar numbers in the tens, a limited appearance) If you want to fix it, there are obvious better methods than promoting the building=* tag as a replacement for landuse=* sub-tag. ---- Kovposch (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The last time I checked decisions aren't made based on how many Google hits a word has versus another. Try looking at an actual dictionary. says a warehouse is "a structure or room for the storage of merchandise or commodities." Whereas, for a slaughterhouse it says "an establishment where animals are butchered." In this case, I think an establishment and a facility could be interchangeable to a degree. It's still not specific to a "structure or room." "a building, or a part of one, for the storage of goods, merchandise, etc." "a building or place where animals are butchered for food", key word there being "place." "a large building for storing things before they are sold, used, or sent out to stores.""a place where animals are killed for their meat", again the key word there is "place." Sure, lets go with the number of Google hits though.
Like you say yourself, the landuse tag is to describe a "place" and a warehouse is not a "place" in the way the tags definition is meant, anymore then my house is an industrial area or an outhouse is either, even though they might be "places" in a philosophical, existential "all words ultimately have no meaning anyway" way. If you think my house is industrial landuse and that's correct to tag it as such then your just being arguementive. In the meantime, we 100% know for sure that warehouses are buildings. Unless you want to tell me Merriam-Webster and Cambridge don't know what they are talking about. Anyway, I'm not advocating for replacing the landuse tag with the building tag. I'm advocating for replacing landuse=warehouse with building=warehouse, because warehouses are buildings not "places" in literally any way that matters. Get it right and don't treat me like my issue is with the landuse tag in general, instead of this specific usage of it. Also, I'm not saying the tag should be "replaced" either. I'm simply saying the article should reflect the fact that there is a more widely used tag and not advocate for this tags use like it currently is. Again, get it right. Adamant1 (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
My search example is to illustrate a possible usage out there, on top of simply looking at a dictionary. How do you interpret the "key word" being "place" in your "a building or place where animals are butchered for food" for "slaughterhouse"?
If I look at the Free Dictionary listings
  1. American Heritage Dictionary 5th Ed: "1. A place in which goods or merchandise are stored; a storehouse."
  2. Collins English Dictionary 12th Ed: "1. (Commerce) a place where goods are stored prior to their use, distribution, or sale"
  3. American Heritage Roget's Thesaurus 12th Ed: "A place where something is deposited for safekeeping:"
  4. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States (1856): "A place adapted to the reception and storage of goods and merchandise. "
  5. Collins Dictionary of Business 3rd Ed: "business premises used by a manufacturer to STORE both raw materials, components etc. (materials store) and final products (finished goods store), and by WHOLESALERS and RETAILERS to store finished products in the course of distribution to buyers."
  6. Collins Discovery Encyclopedia 1st Ed: "a place where goods are stored prior to their use, distribution, or sale"
  7. Illustrated Dictionary of Architecture (McGraw-Hill 2012): "A place in which goods and merchandise are stored; a storehouse. "
Another look at Encylopedia Britannica
  1. Marketing:"firms require storage facilities. Two types of warehouses meet this need"
  2. Logistics
    1. Plant and warehouse site selection: "Firms often must find the location for a new facility. Usually this decision follows a process of system analysis and design, wherein a determination is made of how many facilities the firm should be operating. "
    2. Warehouse and distribution centre management: " Warehouses and distribution centres are similar but have different emphasis. A warehouse is used for the storage of goods. "
  3. Storage: "Accurate market forecasting is essential to the successful functioning of a distribution centre, where the flow of products must be continuous in order that space not be wasted on unused or obsolete items. Further consolidation of the process is accomplished by the public warehouse--Adamant1 (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC), to which many companies ship their products, and from which a buyer can purchase a wide variety of items in a single shipment." ... "Thus, bulk products, such as standard chemicals or cereal grains, from different producers are placed in the same tank or silo in the warehouse."
This is only to show they are not totally focused on being a building, while I don't know how are the professional reputations of American Heritage and Collins dictionaries.
Ok, I ignore your complaint on the usage of industrial=* on non-landuse=industrial first. Your "there is a more widely used tag" is a building=*. If you do "not avocate for this tags use like it currently is" that is industrial=warehouse, should you not tell people to also use another value or tag for the facility, if not make a suggestion yourself that could be independent of a "commercial" or "industrial" context?
---- Kovposch (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but to me the fact that it's 50/50 on the definition as to if a warehouse is confined to a building or not just goes to show how un-clear of a tag it is.

Two things your missing though is that the industrial key is meant to better to define what the kind of landuse=industrial area something is and you haven't given a good retort to that except to ignore it.

Also, say we go with your whole "industrial" can be used on anything, then are you suggesting people for instance use tagging combinations like landuse=commercial + industrial=warehouses on an area that is commercial warehouses? If so, that would be really stupid and against the guidelines. What about building=warehouse + industrial=warehouse on a warehouse building? Because that would be just as stupid. Or are people just suppose to forgo tagging a warehouse with the building tag when that's literally what it is and remember it has like 35,000 uses)?

It's all well and good to go back and forth citing dictionary definitions, other tags, Etc. Etc., but none of that actually solves the issues with the tag that I originally brought up. Your just talking in circles and arguing over semantics, and trying to make this into a personal issue, but none of that gets us anywhere or solves the issues with the tag and they are issues.

Also, if you just take a 1/1 comparison of warehouses tagged with building=warehouse versus industrial=warehouse your look at a couple thousand to one in favor of using the former over the later. So if anything by saying we should forgo the building tag for this one your the one that's actually advocating for "replacing" a tag. I'm just saying lets go with what's already being used in the vast majority of cases and not create an unnecessary, alternative tagging scheme. Again, your answer to that from what I can tell is to just ignore it by using personal reframes.

The way this usually (or at least should usually work) is that someone points out an issue and how they think it can fixed, other people either agree or pose alternatives, a consensus is reached as to how solve the problem, and everyone gets on life after improving things. If you can't do that for some reason, fine. Like I said in my original message I was wanting constructive comments that involved examples, actual counter arguments, and that leads somewhere though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I made it clear industrial=* is supposed used on landuse=industrial, repeatedly. That's it. I haven't considered industrial=warehouse to be a good tag. You can point to an alternative that can tag such facilities in any uses and without the building implication in its value. All I find is you writing against it based on non-industrial or any use-independent instances (when the "industrial" ones should at least be acceptable), and promoting a building tag for what can also be a facility. How does that help solve the facility issue? It's very partial and incomplete to put a header as "Consider using the de-facto tag with for tagging warehouses, building=warehouse instead of this one." as what had happened here.
Is it strange that there are more storage buildings existing anywhere than dedicated storage facilities? That doesn't mean the latter doesn't exist. Nowhere did I say the building is not to be tagged with building=warehouse. They are different things. So I'm very confused why you are making all those being "personal" accusations, when you are only considering buildings as the subject to be focused, even if you seem to have acknowledged storage being a facility.
---- Kovposch (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm writing against this based on non-industrial landuse because like I've said multiple times now that when I researched it was primarily being used on non-industrial places like parking lots and warehouses that were in commercial areas and (or) would have been better tagged as building=warehouse. I'm sure why you keep ignoring that, but you aren't basing your responses or how you think this should be used on the actual usage. 100 percent though if 80% or whatever of the tag is the problematic uses that I have mentioned then the tag is essentially worthless. Say 90% of its usage is on warehouses that either in commercial areas or could otherwise be better tagged, which would only leave around 200 uses if even, then this tag is essentially worthless and no one is using it properly except for a small area. So your personal opinion about "facilities" or "well, use it on industrial areas only then" doesn't really matter outside of you just being against any kind of change or anyone who wants to change something to improve things. I've asked a ton of now for you to provide an example from of the map it being used "as intended" though, but you seem unwilling to provide one. The only reason I can summarize as to why is because one doesn't exist.
"Is it strange that there are more storage buildings existing anywhere than dedicated storage facilities?" No. Your question is irrelevant though, because the way your using the "facilities" is just to handwave the issues I brought up. Otherwise, feel free to define what a "facility" is, say how it actually relates to this, and give an example of one from the map using this tag. As I've said before though, public toilets are considered "facilities" in most place. So are things like drinking fountains, sports centers, gyms, and I could go on. So simply saying "well, uhhh facilities? So I'm right" isn't going to cut it without there being more to it. It's also important to note that the Wiki article for delineate areas of landuse=industrial doesn't have the term facilities anywhere in it, there's zero connection between industrial landuse and "facilities" outside of probably you saying something is a "facility" just because, and therefore the whole "facilities thing seems like just another strawman. Feel free to prove otherwise though.
Re "when you are only considering buildings as the subject to be focused", I'd love to know how I am focusing on buildings when I've brought up this tag being used on parking lots and commercial areas multiple times now. What I'm focusing on is how the tag is being used. Yes that involves buildings, but it's only buildings. You will sit here and go off about me making personal accusations, but then make blatantly wrong comments about what I've said and say things like "Well, if you think there's a problem with the tag then to bad. You should just deal with it" Etc. Etc. How is that any better? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Have you provided any examples yourself for everyone to look at? You are the one raising the issue. I don't even know the areas you have examined. For example, an Overpass query sampling on way["industrial"="warehouse"]({{bbox}}); for a bbox approximately from Cambridge to Tuzla (Bosnia) returns 339 way, with 184 instances having landuse=industrial; Within the 143 building=*, 118 is the building=industrial that should probably be changed to building=warehouse or building:use=warehouse, and 6 are double-tagged with the latter. There are only 3 landuse=commercial, 3 office=*, 2 shop=*, 1 amenity=*. At a glance, this doesn't look like "100 percent though if 80% or whatever of the tag is the problematic uses that I have mentioned then the tag is essentially worthless. Say 90% of its usage is on warehouses that either in commercial areas or could otherwise be better tagged, which would only leave around 200 uses if even, then this tag is essentially worthless and no one is using it properly except for a small area." yet, ---- Kovposch (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Usually it's on the person that is trying to say how a tag is being used "as intendent" and is trying to say how it's defined tp provide the example. Other people aren't here to provide examples of your definition. It only takes a few examples to. Whereas, I'm saying there isn't a consistent one and that the tag isn't being used "as intendent" in any meaningful way. So how exactly would I show that except to link to all 3000+ examples to prove that it's all over the place? You just proved that it is anyway with your example of how half the usage in Cambridge to Tuzla should be tagged re-tagged. Seriously, have even thought this through? What more evidence do you need? The problem here is that if 50% isn't enough you could just pick any random arbitrary percentage of miss-tagging being necessary for me to be correct and then keep moving the bar when I show it. So there's really zero point. IMO, 50% or more of wrong tagging is more then enough to say this is a junk tag and I'm not going to waste my time coming up with the extra 10% or whatever just to satisfy you. Since you likely won't accept it anyway.
So, just to recap, you can't provide an example of how your saying the tag is or should be used, your not willing to provide a clearer definition of how it should be used then what's already there even though your the telling me how it should be used, 50% miss-use (but likely more) is perfectly acceptable (which its completely dumb to even call the other 50% "proper" use considering you aren't even willing to say exactly when the tag should be used and when it shouldn't), and I should essentially just piss off and deal with it. Is that a fair summary of your position?
Can you really not provide an example of what you find wrong first? As long as you point out a problem somewhere, this would already show there's an issue. I'm not rejecting your question. I can't even look at the regions you are concerned with to ask if my understanding meets your expectation yet, because you haven't told me. What I pointed out is that half the industrial=warehouse is on building=industrial, which I have again and again stated this should be building=warehouse in the first place. This is unrelated to the landuse=* situation. ---- Kovposch (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I looked a little more into the numbers. There's 3841 uses of industrial=warehouse total. Of those 2552 are also tagged as landuse=industrial. Which is a little over 65% percent. Likely some of those are wrongly tagged as landuse=industrial though and should really be tagged landuse=commercial. Since the defining feature of an industrial area is not simply the existence of a warehouse on it's own. Given that, I'd say "proper" tagging (if we go the definition that it should only be used on industrial landuse) overall is around 50%, if not slightly lower. Even if it's like 55% "proper" tagging though that still doesn't bode well for your position about it. Let alone how you've been treating me. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

My position has been this should be used on landuse=industrial since the beginning, a response to your note on all those building=industrial that should be building=warehouse. I'm not settling the question on whether these areas should landuse=commercial, landuse=industrial, or something else here. ---- Kovposch (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Isn't the question on whether these areas should landuse=commercial, landuse=industrial, or something else important though to the accuracy of your description of the tags usage as being for landuse=industrial areas? I've said from the start of this discussion that the Wiki should be descriptive not prescriptive. So the article should describe how the tag is being used, not simply how you think it should be. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Is there anything wrong with saying this tag was originally conceived, and has been used on landuse=industrial then? You added a further question as to whether they are landuse=industrial or landuse=commercial in the first place, when I was only focusing on their existing tagging as landuse=industrial. Whether they "should" be landuse=industrial is a more in-depth issue. Well yes, you can add what these landuse=industrial are tagged on. I haven't been writing against that. ---- Kovposch (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that. Except that when the article was created the only thing it said was "A place where goods are stored and shipped from but not manufactured." Which says absolutely nothing about this being only used on industrial landuse. In fact, that it specifically says "but not manufactured" just verifies that it isn't. Your suggestion also assumes that the first couple of uses of the tag were on industrial areas, and it completely ignores the uses going forward from there. You can cherry pick a few recent examples of "correct" usage for any tag out there if you want and will probably be right due to random chance. It doesn't ultimately mean anything though.
I don't think places being tagged as landuse=industrial is a deeper issue either. Since industrial keys are an extension of the landuse=industrial tag and should therefore be dependent on it. Otherwise, it would be like adding the house key to random objects that aren't co-tagged as building=house. Also, your contracting yourself by saying that it was originally meant to be used on landuse=industrial and then saying that if it's actually used that way is to in-depth of an issue. Either it matters if that's how it's currently used because that's how it was originally intendent to be used, or it doesn't because it wasn't. You can't have it both ways though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)