[Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
voschix at gmail.com
Tue Jan 17 14:25:46 GMT 2012
Regarding Landuse=residential I do not agree with the approach of the two
Apart from the aspect of overcrowding any map produced from this data, it
is simply not helpful from a practical point of view. What additional
information do I gain from excluding the road from the landuse area, it is
anyway clear that people do not live on roads. I would strongly advocate
for including the residential roads in the residential landuse areas. In
both examples even cul-de-sac roads are excluded ! I would only exclude
major roads from the residential landuse areas.
Let me use other landuse examples: military. There it is more obvious that
the roads in the military area are used for military purposes. In the same
sense residential roads are used for residential purposes.
Or look at the industrial landuse - would you exclude the service roads and
any similar roads not dedicated to through-traffic?
On 17 January 2012 14:43, Simone Saviolo <simone.saviolo at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/1/17 Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com>:
> > On 1/17/2012 8:10 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> >> 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.
> > I'm not suggesting either of these. But a single chunk of houses is
> > all residential, whether it's the size of a few lots or a huge
> > Splitting it at roads gives no benefit and complicates editing greatly.
> > is just ridiculous:
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=35.323225&lon=-119.077089&zoom=18
> At all; this is how I would tag it. This is how I tag it, actually:
> >> 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,
> > Neither is a lawn or swimming pool.
> I disagree. If the lawn and the swimming pool are part of a residence
> (not at a public park, for example, or not at a sport facility), then
> what do you do there? You relax, you spend time there, you "live"
> there. On the other hand, you don't "live" in the middle of the road.
> >> nor it is meant to be used only by the residents.
> > So your cutoff would be whether through traffic is allowed?
> I have never thought of a rigorous definition; it seems quite evident
> to me. Whether through traffic is allowed is something I would
> describe with access tags.
> For example, there's a footway that connects the two sections of the
> complex I live in. This footway would be access=permissive: it's
> privately owned and it is supposed to be non-accessible to the general
> public, but there are two gates on it and they're open by day, so a
> few people actually use it to go from a street to the other. Through
> traffic (if pedestrian) is allowed, but I would not take the footway
> out of the residential landuse.
> The bottom line is: if you would live there, it's landuse=residential.
> If it's a road, I think we can agree that you wouldn't want to live
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
Via Vecchia 18/ter
mailto:voschix at gmail.com
office phone: +39-049-829-5977
office fax +39-049-8700718
home phone: +39-049-851519
personal mobile: +39-340-1427105
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging