[Tagging] residential granularity / was Re: OSM is ... right ...
pmailkeey at googlemail.com
Sat Jun 6 22:13:07 UTC 2015
On 5 June 2015 at 13:20, Tom Pfeifer <t.pfeifer at computer.org> wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2015-06-05 13:36:
>> Am 05.06.2015 um 11:33 schrieb David Fisher <djfisher81 at gmail.com>:
>>> As for "landuse=residential" -- I agree that we could probably do
>>> without it. But it does add to the readability of the map, especially
>>> at low zoom levels, as it enables you to see at a glance where places
>>> are and how big they are.
>> residential landuse is often seen as "default", it is often used to mark
> > built up area rather than just the residential areas (especially in
> > We should encourage place polygons for this and restrict the use of
> > landuse to residential areas.
> +1. Drawing a residential around a village was the early attempt with
> aerial images. With the level of detail you get from both 20cm imagery and
> open-data property boundaries, my preferred level of granularity is up to a
> block, i.e. the landuse surrounded by residential roads (but not glued to
> This easily allows to draw complementary landuse,
> such as retail/commercial/religious/green areas
> without the need for multipolygons.
> As a first approach when splitting larger landuse, I typically split at
> secondary/tertiary roads.
I'm doing it - using =residential for settlement. Of course, =settlement
(or =place) would be better for this than =residential.
Residential in any case is somewhat vague. People do reside at work as well
@millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> -
For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via *the area's premier website - *
*currently unavailable due to the country's ongoing harassment of me, my
family, property & pets*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging