[Tagging] multiple schools on one plot

Minh Nguyen minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
Mon Apr 5 07:34:15 UTC 2021

Vào lúc 14:39 2021-04-03, Martin Koppenhoefer đã viết:
> sent from a phone
>> On 3 Apr 2021, at 21:49, Jeroen Hoek <mail at jeroenhoek.nl> wrote:
>> Yet landuse=residential can be named, such as when it marks the
>> boundaries of a housing project (obviously distinct from features that
>> are not landuse such as neighborhoods and other place tags),
> I am aware that it is rarely done (5% of all landuses have a name tag), but
> my suggestion is to deprecate this. It makes it impossible to add more detailed landuse, as this would exclude these areas from the „housing project“/named area.

This just reflects the fact that it's far easier to eyeball a bunch of 
landuse areas from aerial imagery (or import them from a landcover 
dataset) than to deliberately map a planned development by its name 
(which requires either a ground survey or local knowledge).

It may not make sense everywhere, but in the suburbs of the U.S., it 
does make sense to tag planned residential subdivisions as landuse. Data 
consumers probably expect place features to more or less fit into a 
local hierarchy, whereas a named subdivision can be as small as a few 
houses [1] or more populous than many towns [2]. Regardless of its size, 
there's always a possibility of other landuse or landcover embedded 
within. After all, it would be perfectly valid to map a house's front 
lawn as landuse=grass or a parklet as leisure=park, but that doesn't 
make the overall land any less residential.

> landuse should be about the usage of land, not imply other concepts like housing projects.

If over a decade ago we had devised a set of POI-like tags that parallel 
the landuse tagging scheme, it might be possible by now to say that 
landuse should basically never be named. But if a new landuse value for 
schoolgrounds is inappropriate because that's a well-established use of 
amenity=school, then the use of landuse for planned developments is also 
here to stay. We even have some popular, documented subtags like 
[landuse=residential] residential=apartments.

>> as can
>> landuse=retail for shopping centres.
> the tag for shopping-centers is shop=mall
> landuse=retail is for land primarily used for retail, and can contain any number of malls and shops, just like several landuse=retail could together describe a single mall.

shop=mall doesn't begin to describe the various kinds of planned retail 
developments out there. Here in the U.S., bone fide malls are a dying 
breed, but we have plenty of strip malls and other outdoor shopping centers.

"Land primarily used for retail" is a valid way to use the tag, but it's 
a bit cruder than the use case that winds up with a name tag. In the 
suburbs I'm used to, a landuse area starts out quite broad, then gets 
broken down into more granular areas that acknowledge exceptions to the 
general landuse that had previously been mapped. After a certain point, 
it becomes possible to name many of the smaller landuse areas based on 
on-the-ground verifiable characteristics like signs and differences in 
landscaping, replacing earlier subjective decisions by armchair mappers.

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32549966
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/253669090

minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us

More information about the Tagging mailing list