[Tagging] landuse=residential and named residential areas which belong together (neighbourhoods/subdivisions?)

Nathan Edgars II neroute2 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 2 09:29:22 BST 2011


On 9/2/2011 3:40 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> On 09/01/2011 02:57 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> IMHO there is no "landuse" inside another landuse (at least for the
>> "true" landuses which are the landuses by man.
> Do we agree that nested polygons replace, not supplement, the outer
> polygon?
>
> The rendering seems cool with this, and it makes sense. If I draw a forest,
> then draw a landuse=reservoir on top of it, those interested in the
> forest's true area can subtract out the reservoir. No multipolgon
> relation needed.

I disagree with this example. First, landuse=reservoir is an 
abomination, since it doesn't refer to land that is used for reservoir 
purposes, but only to that which is normally covered by water. Second, 
the managed forest generally does not extend all the way to the edge of 
the water.

A better example might be an office park tagged landuse=commercial, but 
with one of the buildings or a portion thereof used for retail and 
tagged as such. There is no separate parking for retail customers, so 
one cannot draw a line between commercial and retail uses, as the 
parking lot serves both.



More information about the Tagging mailing list