[HOT] Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within landuse=residential
jwhelan0112 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 29 18:31:52 UTC 2017
> 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
I must confess I normally just add a landuse=residential to these. I'll
quite often come across a new mapper who has used place=hamlet etc.
On 29 Mar 2017 12:04 pm, "Severin Menard" <severin.menard at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Hills <tomphills at gmail.com>
>>> 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.
>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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.
>>>> On 29 March 2017 at 08:10, Vao Matua vaomatua at gmail.com
>>>> <http://mailto:email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> Nick & John,
>>>> Determining where to draw the edge of landuse=residential can be
>>>> Here in Ethiopia most of the population lives in a rural setting where
>>>> they farm areas of 1 to 10 hectares in size.
>>>> There are places where people live in villages, but often dwellings are
>>>> quite dispersed.
>>>> HOT mailing list
>>>> HOT at openstreetmap.org
>>> HOT mailing list
>>> HOT at openstreetmap.org
>> HOT mailing list
>> HOT at openstreetmap.org
> HOT mailing list
> HOT at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the HOT