Proposal talk:Extensions for building:material

Facing structure isn't material

First of all, mapping building structure and architectural details are a really good idea. I'd surely do so in future.
IMHO, the use of key building:material=* is confusing because panel, block aren't material but structure or even facing.
A solution could be to introduce facing:structure=*. Because all we are mapping here is the outside of the building without any deal with inside or deep supporting structure.
This make me think that building:material=glass isn't a good value since it's only the facing which is made of glass whereas the building is made of metal or concrete.
We should distinguish the building structure from the facing.
Anyway keep going with this Fanfouer (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Many houses outside are covered with tiles or plaster and it is completely impossible to understand what is under it. What made the house: bricks, wood or something else? If it is covered from the outside with other material, it will be impossible to do. The building:material=* describes tags for the facade of buildings, and not the material of the deep structures. See the Description of the building:material=*.Therefore, we always specify the building material to describe the material of the facade of the building. There is also a building:cladding=* that is synonymous with a building:material=* (but it is used much less often and I do not recommend using it). Therefore, everything is correct ---Lesnikus (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, building:material=* is strictly about the outer facade material. That has been the case since its introduction, and is documented. --10:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

What if I want to describe a building made of concrete with glass facades ? I'll surely use building:material=glass but which one should I use for the concrete?

Furthermore, values for building:material:concrete=* aren't specific to concrete nor regarding material itself but structure of it. structure=* or subkeys would be better. Fanfouer (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand. Can you explain more fully? ---Lesnikus (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Such a building can't be only made of glass. There can be metal or concrete inside to support the facades. Then if I use building:material=glass for facades, which tag should I use to say this building has concrete inside?

Secondly the values your are proposing (panels, block, monolith) aren't dedicated to concrete material. They are not even materials but structure of the material used to cover the building. Then I think a subkey of structure=* referring to facades is better to hold this information. Fanfouer (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not know which tag to use for this. But you can always come up with and suggest a new tag for describing the material inside the building. You should consult on the forum. But I see the problem. How do you know that the building has concrete inside? Maybe it has bricks inside or something? It is impossible to know for every buildings in your city. So, it is impossible to fill the OSM with this information.

Many ways to know how a specific building is built: Architect publication, photos took while building in progress, works inside the building, archives, and so on... Tags aren't intended for always available information but when information can be available. If you aren't knowledgable on something, someone else can and that's how community win against individual and proprietary work.

I was thinking about your second question. These values (panels, blocks, monolith) relate to concrete. Because there is no monolithic wood or panel brick. Brick material differs only in the shape of the bricks themselves, but they are approximately the same. A wood material happens: a plank, a plywood, a log. Concrete: block, panel, monolith. It is hardly possible to describe the shape of a log house with values from concrete and vice versa.---Lesnikus (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thus it's not mandatory to classify structures in different keys if the material allows QA tools to warn for possible mistakes. building:structure=monolith + building:material=concrete is simpler and doesn't add redundancy, don't you ? Using building:material:concrete=* doesn't give us more information but a long key name which need to be barely typed completely to reach for autocomplete in editors. Furthermore, you won't prevent anyone from using building:material:wood=* in association with building:material=concrete.

Anyway, no material term should be in a key dealing with structure. building:structure:concrete=* would be even better. Fanfouer (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Using the key building:material:concrete=* makes it clear that this is a further refinement (subdivision) of building:material=concrete. It also makes it clear that the well-known rules for building:material=* apply. With building:structure=*, it would not at all be clear how this value corresponds to the other tags on the building, and what exactly it means. So I think building:material:concrete=* is a pretty good choice for the key, and would consider clarity more important than key length. --17:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Reformatting the proposal

Reformatted the Proposed features. Now it is not only concrete, but all materials. If you have suggestions on how to diversify tags, write here.