[talk-au] Residential landuse

[Craig Feuerherdt]

Stephen,

I am facing the same issue in Bendigo. I have been considering suggesting a
landuse=rural_residential tag. AS you state, these blocks are too small for
farming and are therefore still residential. In general, these sort of areas
are on the periphery of townships and are a transition into traditional
farming areas.

According to the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) (
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/lga1993182/sch99.html)

*"rural residential land" means land that: *

*(a) is the site of a dwelling, and *

*(b) is not less than 2 hectares and not more than 40 hectares in area, and
*

*(c) is either: *

*(i) not zoned or otherwise designated for use under an environmental
planning instrument, or *

*(ii) zoned or otherwise designated for use under such an instrument for
non-urban purposes, and *

*(d) does not have a significant and substantial commercial purpose or
character. *


As per the definition above it really comes down to a zoning issue. So if
you can find a map that shows the planning zones (such as "Planning Maps
Online" in Victoria http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/mapshare/) then it will
provide a rough guide as to what land use it may be.

This also relates to a thread that I bought up some time ago questioning the
current interpretation of landuse in the OSM context. Land use is often used
as the proxy for all of the following, however they are distinct.

   - land use - farming, horticulture etc
   - land cover - trees, bare ground, water etc
   - land management - National Park, State Park etc
   - land tenure (or ownership)

I am not going to get on a high horse over the above definitions, but so
long as we as mappers understand that landuse=* often overlaps the above
definitions.

Craig


I'm doing some work on the outskirts of Brisbane, where the properties
> start to get bigger, doing some clean up. And I got to wondering about
> residential landuse.
>
> At one end of the scale, you have inner city housing (350-1000 sq m
> lots), and there's no question they are residential.  At the other,
> there's huge farms with a house - they're not.  But what's the
> dividing line?  How big an acreage do you get to before you decide
> that landuse=residential doesn't really apply any more?  What's the
> consensus?
>
> I know of a whole area of houses with 5 acre lots, and they don't do
> any farming - you just have a big house with a lot of lawn.  Is this
> residential?
>
> Further out, I know of an area where the lots are more like 20-30
> acres - they're not all lawn, but they're not used for farming or
> anything either.  A couple of them have a pony for the kids, but that
> doesn't make it a farm. These are used only as residences, but I to me
> I think we're getting way past the limit of size for marking them as
> residential landuse.  Or am I wrong?
>
> Any guidelines or suggestions?
>
>
> Stephen
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20100617/7b5f4552/attachment.html>