[HOT] Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within landuse=residential

Severin Menard severin.menard at gmail.com
Wed Mar 29 16:02:03 UTC 2017


landuse=residential shows an urban or housing sprawl and therefore can
cross various existing boundaries. boundary=* is related to an official or
existing boundary and in the case of a village, it will encompass not only
one residential area, but sometimes several and other kinds of landuses
like farmland.

I already saw people replacing the landuse=residential tag by place=town
over a precise urban area for some towns in Africa what I think is
basically wrong because these places are generally larger than the
residential area.



2017-03-29 14:03 GMT+02:00 Vao Matua <vaomatua at gmail.com>:

> Thomas, thank you for the thoughts.
> I have looked at the building=farm and landuse=farmyard and believe they
> do not apply in here in Ethiopia.A building that is a dwelling should not
> be tagged as "farm". It is not possible to determine the use of a building
> from aerial imagery. Last week I was in a village and a building that
> looked like a house also had a room that was where livestock were kept at
> night. In the same way similar looking buildings could function as a small
> store (kiosk). I would like to stick with building=yes, but also have a
> landuse tag that is useful for cartography, but also humanitarian uses like
> malaria elimination, or population estimates.
> I would also suggest that boundary is not a good idea in Africa.  In the
> next decade it is predicted that there will be a huge migration shift to
> cities, the places these people will live will be outside of existing
> administrative boundaries. My opinion is that HOT stick with landuse as we
> see it and let those with authoritative information create the boundaries.
> Emmor
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Hills <tomphills at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Firstly this is my first post to the HOT mailing list so I should
>> introduce myself. I'm Tom Hills (http://www.openstreetmap.org/
>> user/Thomas%20Hills) and I got involved through Missing Maps London in
>> August 2014. I'm not a GIS, humanitarian or coding specialist so I'm just a
>> plain old normal volunteer.
>> Majka, I agree with you that landuse=residential isn't particularly
>> useful in the region Emmor quoted. The wiki suggests that it is for an area
>> which has predominantly residential buildings. It says that it should not
>> be used as 'an abstract wrapper around buildings grouping them without a
>> difference between residential landuse within and other landuses around
>> being observable'. I know the wiki isn't infallible but that sounds
>> relatively sensible to me. Of course the region should be mapped in
>> accordance with the task instructions, but if I were mapping this outside
>> of HOT I would use a different method.
>> I should probably know this already, but what *is* the method for
>> estimating population density within HOT? I imagined it used building count
>> rather than residential area size. Is there a diary entry on this?
>> Continuing the thought, I am unaware of how long the three or more
>> buildings 'rule' has been around in HOT, but I remember it from my first
>> Missing Maps mapathons in 2014. This discussion seems to be a good time to
>> ask: Has anyone recently reviewed the utility and relevance of the rule for
>> HOT purposes?
>> Emmor: There's specific tags for farms, e.g. building=farm and
>> landuse=farmland. From what I gather from what you've said and shown, I
>> think that they might be appropriate instead of your
>> agriculture_residential and pastoral_agriculture landuse proposals.
>> Cheers,
>> Tom
>> On 29 March 2017 at 09:33, majka <majka.zem+talk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> First, overlapping landuse areas (even different ones) should *always*
>>> be corrected. It brings problems with the map data, I have seen and
>>> corrected areas where the overlapping did hide ponds from the rendered map.
>>> The *same* overlapping area masks some of the problems but should be
>>> corrected as well - either by deleting of one of the areas or by merging
>>> both together.
>>> The next question is the landuse *size* in the mapped area.
>>> From the view of the mapper in Europe, the landuse=residential in HOT is
>>> problematic. The residential area should be only where the region is used *above
>>> all* for housing people. The HOT use is to mark areas where there are
>>> *some* houses, depending on the project instructions. This ends with a
>>> very problematic rendering of some areas. Visually, you get one big blob of
>>> something most people understand as a town, not the reality of fields and
>>> farms. The very loose residential areas shouldn’t be there at all, IMHO.
>>> Villages/towns boundaries have their own tag, *boundary*. Usually, this
>>> is paired with boundary=administrative which is mostly unusable for HOT
>>> distance mapping because the information isn't available to the mapper. But
>>> nothing speaks against own tag - see here
>>> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:boundary>.
>>> IMHO, the ideal solution would be to change the HOT practice of mapping
>>> residential areas. Leave landuse=residential only to the areas, where the
>>> buildings are densely packed together (even in a village, where there is
>>> *real* street there might be a residential area) - keeping the common
>>> interpretation. Give the residential area a lower importance than it has
>>> now, and start using the boundary instead, for example boundary=residential
>>> to mark the areas with buildings. A later mapping on the ground or use of
>>> governmental data if available could then change this in real
>>> administrative areas marking the hamlets, villages, and towns where
>>> appropriate and leaving the *residential* boundaries to the rural farm
>>> areas.
>>> Ideally, such change would be preceded by discussing on the HOT and
>>> tagging list and followed by updating the wiki definition of a boundary,
>>> and by updating the HOT materials for users. It would need a slight change
>>> in JOSM HOT presets and in the iD editor as well, probably. However, it
>>> shouldn’t be very difficult to do so.
>>> I understand the residential areas are used for getting population
>>> density in the HOT projects. The use of both tags together would be a
>>> better choice, getting the information about sparsely and densely populated
>>> areas at the same time.
>>> Majka
>>> On 29 March 2017 at 08:10, Vao Matua vaomatua at gmail.com
>>> <http://mailto:vaomatua@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> Nick & John,
>>> Determining where to draw the edge of landuse=residential can be
>>> difficult.
>>> Here in Ethiopia most of the population lives in a rural setting where
>>> they farm areas of 1 to 10 hectares in size.
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/6.9634/38.4408
>>> There are places where people live in villages, but often dwellings are
>>> quite dispersed.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> HOT mailing list
>>> HOT at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>> _______________________________________________
>> HOT mailing list
>> HOT at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
> _______________________________________________
> HOT mailing list
> HOT at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/hot/attachments/20170329/700ec987/attachment.html>

More information about the HOT mailing list