[Tagging] musings on landuse

Nathan Edgars II neroute2 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 27 07:14:04 BST 2010


On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> landuse=institutional would include values like military and cemetery,
>
> This one isn't so good. "Landuse=military" is perfectly valid, as
> military land is really different from other land in lots of respects,
> like the absolute prohibition on anyone entering it.
Not always - a recruitment office is open to interested public, for example.

> I don't know how
> a renderer should handle "landuse=institutional" by itself, but I do
> know how it should handle landuse=military.
Perhaps military should be kept out. But the idea is to combine
similar land uses that are often together in real life. For example,
different types of government offices are often adjacent to each
other.

>
>> landuse=transport would include values like railway and garages, as
>> well as other transport like highway junctions
>
> Meh. Whenever you propose merging two tags into one, with
> distinguishing subtags, you have to ask "how would I feel about these
> two tags being rendered the same way, by a renderer that didn't
> support those subtags?" Highway junctions and railway garages? Not so
> good.

landuse=railway is presently rendered the same as landuse=industrial.
>
>> landuse=leisure would include leisure and tourism as well as some amenities
>
> Perhaps, would want to see detail.
On http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:NE2/landuse I list some
possible places that would be inside each landuse.

>> Then there are values like grass and reservoir that are not quite
>> landuse. In particular, reservoir, unlike other landuse tags, only
>> applies to the area that's normally flooded, rather than the land
>> immediately adjacent that is also owned by the water control authority
>> (containing berms and such). This would be like tagging only houses as
>> landuse=residential and leaving the yards and driveways untagged.
>
> Yeah. It would be better to have something like
> landuse=water_management for the fenced-off area, if any.

landuse=utility might work for this and similar areas. And why not
simply natural=water for the smaller area? It may not have been
naturally created (but then neither were many full-size lakes), but
water now naturally flows into the reservoir.
>>
>> I've written up a possible classification here:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:NE2/landuse
>> Ideally this could also serve as a framework to eliminate many amenity
>> values (institution=post_office, leisure=stripclub).
>
> Is this an important goal?

It's a pleasant side effect.



More information about the Tagging mailing list