[Tagging] landuse=commercial

Colin Smale colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Fri Feb 19 16:16:26 UTC 2016


I appreciate that may have been a little ambiguous! We all understand
that there is a balance to be struck. The real high-level concepts will
give less conjecture but be less useful. If you look at how the surface
of the earth is divided, we have water, natural landscapes and man-made
landscapes. That is obviously too high a level to have much value. We
can subdivide the man-made category, which is entirely appropriate when
discussing land USE i.e. what mankind has done with it.
Residential/agricultural/industrial might be a first-order subdivision.
But each of these can be further subdivided - residential could be
sparse or dense, normal houses or apartment blocks etc. Agricultural
could be arable vs. dairy etc etc. Each category can be subdivided
further, like a kind of fractal. But there comes a point when we have to
say we have enough detail. The finer the detail, the more objects we
will have. A small town may have a single "residential" area, but if you
go down a level, it may need hundreds, which will also change far more
frequently that the single residential area. 

This subdivision is not only about the geometry, but also about the
level of detail in the landuse values. The more choices, the more
discussion, the more objects and the more maintenance. 

We should define what level is appropriate for OSM. Potentially giving
every building or plot of land its own landuse polygon is too much. I
think giving the areas used by the "public highway" in residential areas
their own landuse=highway is also too much. landuse=residential feels
about right to me, and landuse=apartments is probably also going too
far. landuse=industrial feels about right for an industrial estate, but
landuse=car_dealer is too much. landuse=retail would be good for a mall,
but landuse=shoeshop is too detailed. 

//colin 

On 2016-02-19 16:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> 2016-02-19 14:57 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl>:
> 
>> I don't think anyone is expecting low-level, detailed categories to get into OSM.
> 
> aren't the tags exactly these?
> 
> Cheers, 
> Martin 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160219/e823df9b/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list