[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=highway

Tod Fitch tod at fitchdesign.com
Fri Nov 29 15:31:33 UTC 2013

On Nov 29, 2013, at 7:07 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:

> Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> writes:
>> 2013/11/17> The definition given for the landuse-polygon seems too restrictive, I'd
>> ditch the second part "are constructed up to a boundary or barrier
>> separating this land from private property."
>> (Because there doesn't have to be private property along a road, and
>> neither there will always be boundaries or barriers).
> In Massachusetts, there is essentially always a lot boundary adjacent to
> a "highway" (which means a legal road).   Sometimes those lots are owned
> by the government.   But there's a very clear notion of "being within
> the the land allocated to the roadway" which is much wider than the
> pavement.
> So I think landuse=highway does make sense and should be about some
> blend of land ownership, lot lines, etc.  I don't mean to say that
> should be mandatory, but it's how it should be when it makes sense
> contextually.

I agree with Greg.

Typical in the US is that the "right of way" (ROW) is the land on which a carriage way is built. That land area is, if possible, quite a bit wider than the traveled way and will include the land used for shoulders, drainage systems, cuts and fills. If possible, the acquisition of the right of way when the road is first built is wide enough to expand all the constructed features without new land purchases if/when traffic conditions require it. In much of the rural western US the ROW is clearly visible because a fence is often placed there to keep wild life or live stock off the road.

So, in the context of US road ways, landuse=highway does make sense.


More information about the Tagging mailing list