[Tagging] musings on landuse

[Dave F.]

  On 27/09/2010 10:19, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Lennard<ldp at xs4all.nl>  wrote:
>> On 27-9-2010 10:16, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>>
>>> Landuse should be covered by land cover (and buildings) where said
>>> cover exists. For example a landuse=retail area may be over half
>>> amenity=parking areas.
>> And yet we call forests/heath/grass/etc land *use* instead of land *cover*.
>>
>> It feels like we're rehashing old discussions.
>>
>> What do you know, we are:
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2009-October/000106.html
> It's not really the same discussion. Clearly a lake can be part of a
> residential area (think of a bunch of lots on the lake with a private
> dock extending from each one)


> , but a lake will not be part of a meadow
> or forest.

I don't see why you consider one to be a part but not the other.
To me neither are; a lake is a separate entity no matter where it's located.

> But what I'm mostly concerned with is having a limited number of
> "top-level" landuse values. For example a large residential
> neighborhood can be tagged landuse=residential, but there's no similar
> value for an area full of government buildings or a tourist strip.

What's a tourist strip?

> (But back to the linked discussion: I use nested landuse polygons all
> the time; a named residential neighborhood can have a small retail
> area within it that's considered to be part of the neighborhood.

Personally I don't name the area because

a) The defining boundary is always a bit vague
b) Depending on the shape of the boundary the label doesn't always 
display within it.

I use POI place names instead.

>   This
> is about the largest polygons which may or may not have smaller ones
> within them.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>