[Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Wed Jan 18 02:18:37 GMT 2012


On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 15:25 +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Regarding Landuse=residential I do not agree with the approach of the
> two examples
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=35.323225&lon=-119.077089&zoom=18
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=45.301967&lon=8.444596&zoom=18
> 
> 
> 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,

Well, in the Bakersfield example, thanks to the residential outlines and
trees, I spotted a median and an alley way that hadn't been mapped
without having to open an editor and WMS first.

> 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.

True, but you can have military activity in a street.  Heck, a military
could take "Occupy Wall Street" literally.

> Or look at the industrial landuse - would you exclude the service
> roads and any similar roads not dedicated to through-traffic?

No, but that would be analogous to a private/permissive living street in
an apartment complex.  Same owner, area and ways used for other uses.
Granted, there's a bit of a judgement call in play, but I'm pretty sure
anybody who is intent on using landuse=* knows how nitpicky zoning is;
ideally landuse=* and zoning should be as congruent as practical in
regards to property lines and actual land use goes.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20120117/e93282fd/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Tagging mailing list