[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=highway

Greg Troxel gdt at ir.bbn.com
Sat Nov 30 01:22:26 UTC 2013

cracklinrain <cra_klinrain at gmx.de> writes:

> 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.

It seems that if the rule is "the road authority can control what
happens" that's an alternate functional definition of property ownership :-)

> 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.

In the US (at least Massachusetts), this sounds almost always wrong,
because there is a strong notion of a legal road vs someplace you may
physically drive.  A legal road might be dirt, and it will still be
highway=unclassified surface=dirt or some such.  A service road
(driveway) or track (typically agricultural/etc.)  will not have an
associated segment of land, because it's just a physical feature of a
larger parcel, rather than something that has a parcel for it.

So I think it's fine to use landuse=highway for areas of land which are
defined to encompass legal roads, but not to assume such areas surround

Which means I oppose landuse=road for the same reasons you do: redundant
and encouraging wrong mapping.

All that said, I wouldn't (myself) add landuse=highway for most local
roads, because it doesn't seem that useful compared to what else I could
do.  But for large-scale highways, I can see doing that.  That said, it
doesn't feel wrong and I can't object if that's what someone else is
into mapping.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20131129/eb39e7f7/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Tagging mailing list