[Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines

Jo winfixit at gmail.com
Sun Jan 22 13:33:56 GMT 2012

2012/1/22 Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com>

> On 17/01/2012 15:41, Jo wrote:
>> For what it's worth. When I start rendering/printing maps based on OSM, I
>> think it's extremely ugly if the landuse is not 'connected' to the roads,
>> i.e. that the landuse uses separate parallel ways with a small space in
>> between for its definition.
> That would be factually incorrect.
> Also remember that the way for the road represents an infinitesimally
> narrow centre line. Any width the road might have is dictated by the
> rendering.
> Example of why not to join landuse to ways:
> Imagine you joined a landuse=field to a road. This field has a hedge
> boundary with a gate in it for a footpath to pass through. In this scenario
> the gate tag would also be on the road indicating there's a barrier to the
> traffic. Clearly wrong.

Since it's obvious that either I understood how to use landuse tagging, or
there is no consensus on how it has to be used, I'll continue by mostly
ignoring it, as I did before.

It's a lot of work to join landuses together and make them contiguous to
the roads where appropriate, so I'll let it be. I might even start
filtering it out with JOSM, as the noise it clearly is.

For me landuse was a way of indicating the general use of the land. If
people want to start exaggerating even further than I do myself then I'll
let it be. This is an area where I mostly started from zero and which I've
been mapping extensively:


I mapped it the summer before bing imagery became available and
postprocessed a bit further about one year ago. I hope I can get back there
this summer and go on with it. I'm not planning to start mapping the
landuse in the ridiculous way I've seen around that turning circle though.
It's time consuming enough as it is to map larger areas. OTOH, even though
I think it's rididiculous, I won't remove it, if I find such landuses,
although my fingers would itch to use Ctrl-J on them...
As for automatically postprocessing those, in order to use them to create
maps, I don't see how I would go about programming that. Which means that
in my private copy I'd probably have to remove all of them and then apply
more general landuses before being able to print maps. This is fine if I
only need a map once of an area, but not feasible if I need them regularly.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20120122/7a24cd4d/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list