<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16890" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=437505316-06102009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Yes - I think Anthony makes the case very well and gives a
clearer response to Chris than I did!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=437505316-06102009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=437505316-06102009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I think the distinction between landuse=forest (where the
tracks - and even roads - are normally regarded as part of the forest) and some
of the other landuse= is sensible. I also agree that there is a different set of
criteria that apply between the abutment and the cut-across
cases.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=437505316-06102009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=437505316-06102009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>As for a new landuse=road_something, that seems helpful for
micro-mapping, especially in urban areas. I would counsel against using
landuse=right_of_way, however, because the term "right of way" has specific
legal implications in some jurisdictions and might not apply in all cases (e.g.
a private or unadopted residential road).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=437505316-06102009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=437505316-06102009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>In the UK, at least, the "highway" in law usually extends
for the whole area between the adjacent land areas - i.e. it includes the
carriageway upon which vehicles travel as well as the verges, which might be
grass, dirt, paved footways (with or without cycleways), etc. Thus this area
would normally completely fill the real-world 'gap' between adjacent landuse
areas, e.g landuse=residential, commercial, farm, forest,
etc.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=437505316-06102009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=437505316-06102009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>[Chris: a nice rural example near you would be the several
green lanes in and around Great Barrow; some are private and others are
footpaths, bridleways or even restricted byways. Most of the area was owned
by the Marquess of Cholmondeley but when he sold most of it to individual
farming landowners in 1919 he retained ownership of many of the green lanes -
and to the best of my knowledge he is still the landowner of these between the
fences/hedges that separate them on either side from the adjacent
farmland.]</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=437505316-06102009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=437505316-06102009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>This suggests that the area tag might even be
landuse=highway!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=437505316-06102009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Magneto color=#0000ff size=2>Mike Harris</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Anthony [mailto:osm@inbox.org]
<BR><B>Sent:</B> 06 October 2009 17:30<BR><B>To:</B> John Smith;
c.morley@gaseq.co.uk<BR><B>Cc:</B> talk@openstreetmap.org<BR><B>Subject:</B>
Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:56 AM, John Smith <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:deltafoxtrot256@gmail.com">deltafoxtrot256@gmail.com</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<DIV class=im>2009/10/7 Anthony <<A
href="mailto:osm@inbox.org">osm@inbox.org</A>>:<BR>> On Tue, Oct 6,
2009 at 10:21 AM, John Smith <<A
href="mailto:deltafoxtrot256@gmail.com">deltafoxtrot256@gmail.com</A>><BR>>
wrote:<BR>>><BR>>> 2009/10/7 Anthony <<A
href="mailto:osm@inbox.org">osm@inbox.org</A>>:<BR>>> > Most
sidewalks pretty much meet that criterion, and roads sort of
meet<BR>>> > it<BR>>> > (not at intersections,
though).<BR>>><BR>>> There is a landuse area around roads that
isn't part of surrounding<BR>>> property boundaries.<BR>><BR>>
I'm quite aware of that, and that's why I think there should be a<BR>>
landuse=right_of_way, completely separate from the
"highway".<BR>><BR>> I wonder, how do others define "highway", if not
as "a path of travel"? It<BR>> contains such things as roads,
sidewalks, and dirt paths, and presumably<BR>> also includes paths of
travel which are completely unbuilt (the unpaved<BR>> grass on the side
of the road gets a "highway" tag,
right?)."<BR>><BR><BR></DIV>landuse=road_reserve ?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>I'm not sure they're always used for roads, but good enough!
I'm planning on implementing this, probably in the next few weeks (though it
may be a few months, and I may have a small scale run within a week or
two). Should I use landuse=road_reserve, landuse=right_of_way, or not
bother tagging those areas at all?<BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Chris Morley <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:c.morley@gaseq.co.uk">c.morley@gaseq.co.uk</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">Landuse
areas which cross a large number of ways are very common.<BR>Surely you
don't intend to divide say, Delamere Forest, into a large<BR>number of
separated areas separated by the paths and tracks?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>In that case, you shouldn't, because the paths and tracks are part of
the forest. Likewise, you wouldn't split the landuse at a service
highway which goes through a landuse=commercial. But that's not an
example of "landuse" abutting a "highway", it's an example of a "highway"
cutting through a "landuse". "Landuse" and "highway" are really
independent concepts, aren't they? The main counterexample where you
*would* have a "landuse" abutting a "highway" is in the case of "pedestrian
areas", which are tagged as "highway" in addition to being tagged as
"landuse", right?<BR><BR>Whether or not a "highway" should cut through a
"landuse=residential" or "landuse=farm" is probably jurisdiction
dependent. Where I live there are specific areas of land set aside for
roads and other specific areas of land set aside for houses. Seems to me
like a clear case for separate "landuse" areas, no?<BR><BR>If you don't have
the data to separate out the two, that's fine. I don't mind "highway"
ways cutting through "landuse" areas so much. But that's not the same as
using the "highway" way as the border to your "landuse" area. The only
way I can see doing that is when the "landuse" area is *also* a "highway"
area.<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>