Talk:Tag:building=condominium

There is substantial (absolute) overlap with building=apartments, and not all condominiums are apartments. My understanding is that condominium more truly reflects aspects of ownership of the building fabric rather than a specific building type. SK53 (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The overlap is not absolute, as not all apartments buildings are condominiums. The different ownership has often consequences for the building structure and generally overlap is very common for building types, e.g. all houses and apartments buildings are subtypes of residential buildings. There are also different connotations: while a condominium tends to be associated with higher income, more luxury, an apartment or flat is simpler, has smaller units, etc. Social housing is often provided via apartment blocks, never in condominiums. --19:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I share the concern that the differences between condominiums and apartments are not very visible (if at all), and mostly limited to legal aspects and ownership. Those aspects should not really be mapped using the building value, though. --Tordanik 20:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I own a leasehold property in the UK which is very similar to a condominium owned by friends in the US. There are differences in legal rights, ownership & obligations, but these are in contracts and are not amenable to ground truthing. I do not see how one can tell whether a block of apartments are held in condominium or just rented out. There are substantial areas of London (Hyde Park Estate & the Grosvenor Estate) where all properties are leasehold. The Hyde Park Estate includes apartments, (large) terraced houses, and many mews houses. SK53 (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not see the real difference for introducing this tag either. It is just confusing. Chrabros (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, reading the wikipedia article which describes sections/estates of detached houses where the ground etc is a condominium means the definition is wrong. This clearly refers to an ownership model not a building type & should be deprecated. SK53 (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't insist. I believe with some background knowlegde for many cases it could be used as specific appartement classification, but there are other residential subtypes that are probably more interesting, e.g. mixed types (shops in the ground floor, offices in the ground or first floor, etc.) vs. residential only use. How will we go on to delete this specific key page, or shall we keep it for documentation reasons (there are already a bunch of instances of this tag in the wild)? I have removed the tag from the building=* summary table. --09:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I would keep the page for documentation purposes. Chrabros (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm massively in favour of documenting tags which exist in the wild! In this case I think we ought to also steer people away from using it for the reasons stated above, and if people really want to tag the ownership type then use something related to that. SK53 (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

template text

re https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:building%3Dcondominium&diff=1646175&oldid=1502415 @EzekielT: - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Deprecated_features#building.3Dcondominium_not_listed Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I would describe reason on this page (done) and remove the header template. Or edit header template text? Deprecated features has some unusuable template system that is too complex for me so I am not going to add it there (and I am working as a programmer! I am not someone easily scared by complex computer systems!) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)