Inconsistency in LoPoint Pillbox bunkers
There seems to be some inconsistency in the bunkers imported from OSM as LoPoints.
Case 1: When a "pillbox" bunker is mapped as a node, it is imported as a LoPoint (this is OK):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3371584407
Case 2: When a "pillbox" bunker is mapped as a building (area), it is not included as a LoPoint (why?):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/254281736
Case 3: There is also another kind of bunker (bunker_type = blockhouse) that I have never seen mapped as a point in OSM but it is quite often mapped as a building. It is an even more significant and important kind of bunker, at least within the system of historical WW2 bunkers in Czech Republic. But it is not included as a LoPoint:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/253726236
If bunkers are supposed to be LoPoints (IMHO the historical WW2 bunkers in Czech Republic definitely should be), it would make sense to include both kinds of bunkers (pillbox and blockhouse) as LoPoints, both as nodes and buildings (areas).
To support the argument, both OSM and Mapy.cz are consistent for these 3 cases:
- When you open the attached links to OpenStreetMap, in all 3 cases you will see the same icon that is used for Pillbox bunkers in LoPoints.
- Mapy.cz / Mapy.com contains all 3 objects from the 3 cases as a "fortress, bunker" and all 3 have a clickable POI.
Note: I am not sure which category should be used for an issue in LoPoint data. I selected Locus Web Planner, as it contains all LoPoints and a map where you can see which bunkers have been turned into LoPoints.
The same problem 
Hello Josef, thanks for reporting this. The main problem here is the tricky use of "disused:" and "disused"="yes" mapping. It used to be part of a broader "lifecycle management" of Points of Interest. But this approach is not good enough. A disused lighthouse is still an important landmark, a disused bunker is most likely just not active military property, ready to be visited. On the other hand a disused cafe, post office, hotel is not a place one is that much interested into. So there is no other way than specific configuration. I am doing that. This enhancement will be published online first, offline dataset will follow.
Hello Josef, thanks for reporting this. The main problem here is the tricky use of "disused:" and "disused"="yes" mapping. It used to be part of a broader "lifecycle management" of Points of Interest. But this approach is not good enough. A disused lighthouse is still an important landmark, a disused bunker is most likely just not active military property, ready to be visited. On the other hand a disused cafe, post office, hotel is not a place one is that much interested into. So there is no other way than specific configuration. I am doing that. This enhancement will be published online first, offline dataset will follow.
Replies have been locked on this page!