<div dir="auto">I totally agree with Minh here. I always thought that it was standard parctice in OSM to add the name tag to a landuse=residential way that encompasses the subdivision. Subdivision names aren't always used in common parlance (especially if it's a smaller subdivision) so most people wouldn't necessarily consider the subdivision name to be the name of the neighborhood that they live in. </div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 12:44 AM Minh Nguyen <<a href="mailto:minh@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us">minh@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Vào lúc 18:40 2020-09-22, Paul Johnson đã viết:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:36 PM Mike N <br>
> <<a href="mailto:niceman@att.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">niceman@att.net</a> <br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:niceman@att.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">niceman@att.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> On 9/22/2020 9:26 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:<br>
> > The extra hamlet nodes are import remainders that haven't<br>
> yet been<br>
> > converted to landuse areas. The general landuse zones for<br>
> that area<br>
> > have been identified, but do not exactly correspond to the named<br>
> > subdivisions. As I get a chance to survey, I divide the<br>
> landuse into<br>
> > subdivisions and convert the node to a named area for the<br>
> subdivision.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Please don't expand these as landuse, please expand them as<br>
> > place=neighborhood instead. Landuse polygons should be congruent<br>
> to the<br>
> > actual land use.<br>
> <br>
> That's a good point: the subdivisions often contain one or more landuse<br>
> basins, clusters of trees, etc. I've been thinking of them as one big<br>
> blob, but it seem correct on a more micromap level to mark them as<br>
> place=, and identify the smaller landuse areas (which are sometimes all<br>
> residential).<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Exactly. My rule of thumb is if you're thinking about putting a name on <br>
> it, and it's not a shopping center, apartment complex or similar large <br>
> but contiguous landuse, then landuse=* probably isn't what your polygon <br>
> should be.<br>
<br>
It's common, intuitive, and IMO beneficial to map a planned, <br>
suburban-style residential development as a single named <br>
landuse=residential area. These developments have well-defined <br>
boundaries and are primarily residential in character. If there are some <br>
wooded lots in the subdivision, it's perfectly fine to map a <br>
natural=wood area inside of or partially overlapping the <br>
landuse=residential area, ideally without being connected to it. This <br>
approach is supported by longstanding documentation [1], old threads <br>
[2], and good support in both renderers [3] and search engines.<br>
<br>
There have also been old discussions where folks have conflated the <br>
concept of landcover with landuse. [4] But I find this approach overly <br>
academic. Taking it to the logical extreme, landuse=residential would <br>
only be coincident to each house in a subdivision, given that the yards <br>
are non-dwellings.<br>
<br>
I don't see the need for a fundamental distinction between planned <br>
residential developments consisting of multi-family apartments and those <br>
consisting of single-family houses, such that the former would be mapped <br>
as a coherent landuse area but the latter would be a shapeless place <br>
point. Where there's no such distinction, the landuse areas lend <br>
themselves to ab intuitive rendering that's good for navigating suburban <br>
sprawl. [5]<br>
<br>
If a planned development truly is actually mixed-use, and not only in a <br>
garden-level micromapping sense, then something other than landuse=* <br>
would be reasonable, since a particular landuse doesn't characterize <br>
that development anyways. Named landuse=residential areas also don't <br>
tend to make as much sense in urban areas, older inner suburbs, and <br>
rural areas. But the areas in changeset 91255294 aren't mixed-use <br>
developments; they're residential areas in a suburban setting.<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1087300" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1087300</a><br>
[2] I previously wrote on this topic in <br>
<<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-June/011131.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-June/011131.html</a>> and <br>
it seemed like other respondents were taking the same approach.<br>
[3] <a href="https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/351" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/351</a><br>
[4] <br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2017-January/019811.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2017-January/019811.html</a><br>
[5] <a href="https://osm.org/go/ZTVSa4OB" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://osm.org/go/ZTVSa4OB</a><br>
<br>
-- <br>
<a href="mailto:minh@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">minh@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-us mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
</blockquote></div>