[Tagging] landuse=residential and named residential areas which belong together (neighbourhoods/subdivisions?)
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Aug 30 10:07:23 BST 2011
2011/8/30 Bryce Nesbitt <bryce2 at obviously.com>:
> On 08/29/2011 04:59 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> What would you think about a stacked approach?
Is still complicated to evaluate, and tends not to focus on details,
at least for residential landuse you would get lots of false positives
simply because noone has yet bothered to draw different landuse where
it applies. I would draw and tag the stuff that you know/have seen,
e.g. there is an area where people live, fine, tag it
> You draw a regular polygon around the entire city:
we have got place for "the entire city".
> Add the parks within the commercial district
leisure=park (which doesn't force you to set any landuse) for parks. I
thought that recreation_ground had something to do with sports.
> Insert a the beach in the park, as a regular polygon
I would see natural and landuse orthogonal. natural (looking at the
currently used tags, with very few exceptions) seems to describe a
topographical feature (like a beach, a bay, a summit, a mountain pass,
a cave, ...). This feature might have more then one landuse inside (or
overlapping, or several features can be inside one landuse -> they
have few to do with eachother). See also this proposal:
> With a patch of green grass roof (a city park):
-1, IMHO landuse is about _land_use, so I would not tag a roof with landuse.
> For one downside: you have to parse everything in the bounding box before
> calculating areas.
yes, and not only. If you drew a polygon around the whole city and
then download just a fraction inside this polygon you will hardly ever
see it in your editor (because its way is not intersecting the
download area). Similarly you might get problems on rendering and all
other kind of data evaluation (because you never know if your bounding
box is big enough).
More information about the Tagging