Author: a.t.chadwick[at]gmail.com
[Added to the original trac issue at 4.41pm, Monday, 7th February 2011]

Seconded - it's so tempting to be vague and use the less-emphasized building=residential for little sheds and garages too. I.e. the sort of building you'd find in a landuse=residential.

Author: Harry Wood
[Added to the original trac issue at 10.43am, Wednesday, 9th February 2011]

In general I feel that adding a high granularity of different values into building tags should be discouraged in favour of a simple tag (building=yes) alongside other existing tags (e.g. amenity tags) which give the building a type/use information. Having any difference of rendering for different values runs contrary to this.

It also means whichever way around the logic is, the stylesheet will end up with a bunch of different values to catch. Currently it's got 'house' and 'residential' values picked out. I kind of agree that it makes more sense for the default to be lower prominence, but a problem with this idea is... what set of values are you suggesting for high prominence?

Author: Ed Avis
[Added to the original trac issue at 1.45pm, Wednesday, 11th May 2011]

It might make more sense to pick out specific tags for high prominence. That reflects the way mapping usually happens: put a vague building=yes as a first pass and refine it later. At the moment building=yes is counted as high prominence which makes little sense.

I also agree with Harry W. that amenity tags are usually the way to go.

Finally, the outline around building shapes is a really useful enhancement to the map. I would suggest keeping the outline for all buildings, even houses, and finding some other way to mark them as less significant.

Author: math1985
[Added to the original trac issue at 2.05pm, Monday, 31st March 2014]

This issue is now being discussed on Github: gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto#68
Therefore, I will close this issue here.