[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=highway

cracklinrain cra_klinrain at gmx.de
Fri Nov 29 16:18:53 UTC 2013



Am 29.11.2013 16:31, schrieb Tod Fitch:
> 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.

German roads are built similar. But usually this is not dependent on
stuff like property. Usually land owners are forced to fit onto the
local prescriptions. So maybe a ditch is part of the property of a
private person, but part of the street. Barriers are already part of the
property.

I would welcome landuse=highway from the view that there are tons of
mappers at Germany who map landuse-areas onto road-nodes - which is
totally unacceptable for me.

On the other hand I am against a landuse=road, because it will encourage
mappers to map highway=track surrounded by an area of landuse=road,
instead of mapping rivers and streams in the close neighbourhood.

For landuse=residential for example such a landuse=road tag is not
necessary in my opinion.

The next thing is: How will you applicate such a tagging? Multipolygons
or tons of smaller polygons?



More information about the Tagging mailing list