Hello,

Looking at the history, the 1^st one described the footway area, not the building.

Now building+building:part is wrong, building+footway too, building+level too

For the 2^nd building+buildint:part is also wrong.

For the name : it's look like the name of the area, including building, plateform, rails, ...

And not the name of the building. So building shouldn't have a generic name.

Regards,

Marc

De : Christopher Beddow <christopher.beddow@gmail.com>
Envoyé : mercredi 22 avril 2026 23:17
À : Openstreetmap Schweiz/Suisse/Svizzera/Svizra <talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch>
Objet : [talk-ch] Luzern Bahnhof - duplicate polygons?

Guten abig,

I was looking at the data for Luzern Bahnhof. I noticed some weird polygons, but maybe it is expected, maybe it is wrong. Can someone share their opinion?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17482554 - this is a multipolygon with several members and seems to have the full outer edge, inner edges, is level=0, build_part=yes, is also highway=footway and building=yes

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1280137373 - this looks to be the same as the outer way of the multipolygon above. But this is not a child member of the multipolygon, and has sparse other tags.

is the way a duplicate of the relation? Or should these really both exist separately?

A secondary question: we have the railway station as a node: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2051794005 - should the relation and way above be named Bahnhof Luzern, considering the node is named Luzern, or should the relation and way just have no name, as train station buildings but not the representative "point of interest" that has a name?

Thank you for your opinions on this and I look forward to learning what is the best practice!

Freundliche gruesse,

Christopher Beddow