[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=highway
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
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
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