colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Fri Feb 19 13:57:54 UTC 2016
You mention that zoning <> landuse because one is administrative and the
other is factual. My point is they use the same terminology, so studying
one gives us a framework for the other. Of course there are frequent
examples of factual use being in conflict with the zoning plan. This can
happen for many reasons. Sometimes this is simply documented and
tolerated by planning authorities, (the exemption might only last until
the property is sold) and sometimes the authorities take action to stop
the illegal landuse. The foundation underlying all of this is the system
of classification of the different uses, which is interpreted by the
authorities to be able to judge whether the factual use is inside or
outside the allowed uses for that location.
I don't think anyone is expecting low-level, detailed categories to get
into OSM. We are not going to reproduce the planning authorities' GIS.
We are aiming at the high-level values such as "industrial", but the
low-level classifications in the ontology of the planning authorities
will help us to assess what we see happening at a location, and map it
to one of the high-level classifications.
As you mention, mixed use can be particularly troublesome. On a large
farm (so agricultural usage) there are "islands" with a differing
factual usage, such as the house where the farmer lives (residential
usage) and the workshop where he mends his combine harvester (industrial
usage). We should have a consistent policy as to whether these "islands"
take their factual usage, or are considered part of the larger-scale
object without their own landuse object in OSM. This is also a challenge
in zoning policies, where there often explicit combinations which are
allowed, such as a bit of residential on a farm, and a bit of
residential in a retail area, all under strict conditions such as it
being linked to the farm or shop and not exceeding X% of the land area.
Of course all authorities do it their own way, and there is no global
standard we can follow (unless the UN have got a model for this?). What
we can learn however is what makes a good standard in terms of breadth
of coverage and in terms of depth of detail. With that in our minds, we
are free to define our own standard.
Now I am going to read your entire post in detail including the German
information you linked to...
On 2016-02-19 14:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2016-02-19 12:11 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl>:
>> If we can get back to basics for a minute:
>> Commercial means commerce is occurring, i.e. buying and selling.
> just that selling to end customers is "retail" in OSM, so landuse=commercial in OSM clearly doesn't include everything that falls into "commerce".
> "commerce" also includes other things besides "buying and selling" goods, e.g. services. Hence it includes transportation and distribution (ports, airports), trade fairs, electronic commerce, finance, wholesale, marketing, etc. As retail isn't included it isn't clear whatelse is included and what not, hence this thread.
>> Industrial implies things are being made or repaired, e.g. factories.
> yes, but mostly in the real life, industrial is then further divided into finer grained subcategories, e.g. light industrial. Also, repairing might fall into commercial as well (selling of services). A port for goods usually will fall under industrial landuse I believe, warehouses in OSM are explicitly in industrial, but are neither production nor repairing, etc.
>> Zoning is administrative, and may differ from current land use.
> not only is it "administrative", it also defines a certain scale, and it isn't applicated in lots of areas of the globe, and it is prospective (defining rules for the future).
>> However it is probably a reasonable indicator of current land use.
> IMHO it is not, at least not everywhere, for the previously mentioned reasons.
>> In particular, the language that planning authorities use to categorise the zones will give us useful clues. The zoning of a shopping centre will probably be something like "retail", defined such that a grocers can be replaced by a phone shop without invoking change-of-use regulations. But if a business park is zoned as "light industrial" and a unit was to be repurposed as a supermarket, or a warehouse, then that may consititute a material change of use. Such categorisations are not entirely arbitrary; in particular traffic/transport considerations and risk assessments concerning storage and transport of hazardous materials can have a big impact.
> seems as if you are referring to a certain jurisdiction, and you still stick to zoning in your way of looking at things, rather than looking at the actual landuse. I understand than in many countries there will indeed be a strong relationship between zoning and what is actually there, but this is not what landuse is about, and it is not the general reality globally, so it isn't helpful as a general definition.
>> So my suggestion would be to look at the way areas are classified in zoning plans, to give some kind of ontology to base the landuse values on. Then we can decide to what extent we want to blindly follow the official zoning (at one extreme) or reflect every detail of actual current use (the other extreme) or something in the middle.
> Yes, looking at which classification is actually used by the authorities might be useful to determine how we are describing landuse. I wouldn't look at "zoning" classes but rather on landuse classes though, i.e. the system the administration uses to classify what is, not what should be.
> In Germany (sorry, but that's where I know the details), "zoning" is done in 2 levels: the "Flächennutzungsplan" (1:10.000 - 1:50.000) and the "Bebauungsplan" (1:500-1:2500). These plans usually describe the "kind of usage" (Art der Baulichen Nutzung), "degree of usage" (Maß der baulichen Nutzung), "size and position of parts of the site that can be built-up" (überbaubare Grundstücksflächen), "areas for traffic and infrastructure" (örtliche Verkehrsflächen), or in other words: kind and intensity of usage on the sites, structure of the areas between those (traffic).
> But: for the actual landuse, there is the Katasterbuch, a textual part of the cadastre which describes for every site the actual usage. The scale for the associated plans is typically 1:1000. Now, for the zoning (planning of the future), the relevant law is the BauNVO (Baunutzungsverordnung) which defines certain categories (more detailed ones for the B-Plan), but, for what is actually there, they use a different system, here is an example: http://www.ldbv.bayern.de/file/pdf/5278/Objekte_der_TN-Kurzuebersicht.pdf
> I have also looked up the details for Rheinland-Pfalz  (assuming that all Länder would handle this similarly), and have found they require to list all subareas >= 100 sqm, and to use the detail level and criteria of ALKIS-OK. For built-up sites they require to _list_ unbuilt parts seperately only if the are bigger than 1000 sqm or if they are more than 10 times the size of the building footprint (but they will be there in the drawing). Also they use the predominant landuse criterion, e.g. a garage on a residential site, or a tree row along a soccer pitch (2 examples they give) would not constitute separate landuses. For the drawing they require 1m precision.
> This is the list of stuff they distinguish for existing landuse :
> 1st level:
> - Siedlung (built-up)
> - Verkehr(traffic/transportation)
> - Vegetation (vegetation)
> - Gewässer (water)
> 2nd level (settlement / built-up):
> Wohnbaufläche (residential)
> Industrie- und Gewerbefläche (industrial, light industrial and commercial)
> Halde (dump / stockpile)
> Bergbaubetrieb (mining)
> Tagebau, Grube, Steinbruch (openpit mining, pit, quarry)
> Fläche gemischter Nutzung (mixed use)
> Fläche besonderer funktionaler Prägung (area of particular functional imprint)
> Sport-, Freizeit- und Erholungsfläche (sport and recreation)
> Friedhof (cemetery)
> the residential areas are inclusive of associated open space areas (driveways, gardens, garages, courtyards) and require to be exclusively or predominantly used for living (i.e. if you use a room as an office, you're fine, but if you use half of the building for your office you're in a different class).
> INDUSTRIAL / COMMERCIAL
> the industrial / commercial areas are further structured into these functional classes (1400ff):
> retail and services
> administration and freelancers
> bank, credit, finance
> commerce (like the first category, but bigger, with unified administration and big parking areas)
> exhibition, fair
> market garden
> another subcategory is (1700ff):
> buildings and open space, industry and commerce
> petrol station
> outdoor storage area
> basic material (?)
> social facility of a business
> another subcategory (2500ff) is supply of (and areas of operation / Betriebsfläche)
> subcategory (2600ff) is disposal
> waste disposal
> waste water treatment
> <end functional classes for industrial and commercial>
> additionally there are attributes for the kind of goods in storage facilities.
> Needless to say that the administration is classifying everything up to the third level of detail (they don't even use these terms, 1st level, 2nd level etc., they are only there to easier find what you need).
> I will at this point not translate the other features defined for other classes like dump sites, mining areas or quarries, but I believe the list above can be very helpful to analyze our current situation in OSM and to determine where we might need or want more detail.
> MIXED USE
> But I want to specifically invite you to take a look at the mixed use, something I have more than once desperately missed in OSM. This class is for areas where no predominant use is found, e.g. in rural areas these could be farmyards (with residential parts) or it is used for central areas in cities and towns (or "core areas" / Kerngebiete in German), where retail, central business administration and public administration are there besides optionally residential usage (e.g. in the upper floors).
> For this type there are these categories:
> residential and public
> residential and retail and services
> residential and commerce and light industrial and industrial
> plus 3 classes of the former 3 classes the other way round (i.e. less residential and more of the other function)
> residential and firm
> agricultural area of operation
> forestry operational area
> Furthermore there are attributes for abandoned, disused, extension, startup
> area of PARTICULAR FUNCTIONal imprint
> these are generally structures to satisfy public purposes or with historic buildings and structures
> the detailed categories are:
> public administration
> research and education
> religious institutions
> health and cure
> security and order (police, fire department, armed forces, prisons)
> historic site
> I will also not give a comprehensive summary of the sport and recreation class, but there are some details I'd like to point out to give an idea what is found here (besides the obvious). This class encompasses also playgrounds, the zoo, traffic training sites, weekend homes, swimming pools, camping sites, parks, alotment gardens, botanical gardens, ...
> It would be great if more people could come up with summaries of official versions of categorization systems and classes in their country FOR ACTUAL LAND USAGE (not for zoning / prospective usage).
>  - http://www.lvermgeo.rlp.de/index.php?id=2933&no_cache=1&cid=54&did=6204&sechash=f5f557f9
>  - http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/service/gesetzestexte/de/download/geoinformation/Vorschriftensammlung/6_1.pdf (this is Berlin, but again: these are all similar I guess)
> you find the stuff on page 129 and after
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging