[Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines

Simone Saviolo simone.saviolo at gmail.com
Tue Jan 17 13:10:04 GMT 2012

2012/1/17 Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com>:
> On 1/17/2012 6:28 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> 2012/1/17 Maarten Deen<mdeen at xs4all.nl>:
>>> On 2012-01-16 23:27, Robin Paulson wrote:
>>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=-36.878407&lon=174.741523&zoom=19
>>>> the landuse polygon has an orange highlight on it, why does it do that?
>>> Just a hint on mapping (not to Robin in particular): I think it is
>>> unnecessary to cut up landuse=residential areas just because there is a
>>> road
>>> there. The road itself is as much part of the residential area as the
>>> ground
>>> the houses stand on. IMHO there is no reason not to make the
>>> landuse=residential be contiguous across multiple roads.
>> I disagree. Public roads generally are a different landuse (i.e. they
>> are roads). Smaller landuse entities also are much easier to refine
>> later. And yet another point: landuse mapped like in this example
>> conveys more information because it indicates the border of the
>> private properties.
> I'd probably split the polygons only at Sandringham (which I'd make
> tertiary), unless each block has its own name. Residential roads are
> obviously part of a residential landuse.

I find it useless to map such wide areas as landuses. There's no point
in tagging a whole village's area as landuse=residential, and there's
no point in making a sixty-km-wide polygon to indicate that between
Parma and Reggio Emilia there's cultivated land.

As to residential roads, I don't think they are part of the landuse. I
agree that "service"s (especially driveways) and "living_street"s are,
but a residential road is not a place to live, nor it is meant to be
used only by the residents.



More information about the Tagging mailing list