[talk-au] Discussion F: landuse=residential
andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 30 03:56:34 UTC 2019
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 13:31, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au <
talk-au at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> # Discussion F: landuse=residential
> ## The Issue
> I am very interest in improving quality and consistency. In this case, the
> question is inconsistent or incomplete? I have discovered that many
> residential areas have still not been mapped.
> ### Specifics: landuse=residential
> There is a land usage type with the tag RESIDENTIAL. It shows as dark grey
> (Mapnik) or brown (HikeBikeMap) on the maps. For both Mapnik and
> HikeBikeMap, the blank areas are shown in light grey. There is a preset for
> it in the editors. It is shown as a distinct yellow in the ID editor.
> ### The problem is incomplete
> I have audited the land use in the ACT. Only about half of the residential
> areas in the ACT have currently been mapped, and the other half have not.
> Is this inconsistent or incomplete? Is the glass half-full or half-empty?
> Has this become the standard or is it the exception?
> I think we should define it as the standard and try to get the other
> suburbs up to scratch. It is easy to do. Some suburban areas where the have
> been already mapped. The areas are visible on the satellite photos.
### The problem of inconsistent
> It is possible to see on the map that "people live there"
> (landuse=residential) without drawing all the houses (building=house) on
> the map. There are some suburbs in Canberra where every house has been
> traced onto the map: see Wanniassa and Oxley in Canberra’s south:
> This exceeds the scope of what can be done with the approximate 24 mappers
> that work in the ACT. Some developers do this already but the ACT Suburban
> Land Agency (https://suburbanland.act.gov.au/en/) is not one of them.
> They only sell the blocks, not build the houses. It makes sense to map
> buildings for every government building and office building. I don’t care
> if my house is on the map.
> ### Limiting the scope
> The ACT government has prescribed that the ACT Suburban Land Agency will
> build for the coming four financial years 6588, 12261, 10000, 15000
> mixed-use dwellings. Where do you stop zooming in? On ACTmapi Images 2019
> you can see the mirror on a motor vehicle. Whether every garden shed should
> be map is otherwise very questionable. Street numbering can be done
> otherwise. (Street numbering in Canberra is woeful.)
> ### Definition of the scope
> I would say landuse=residential is generally all that is required as a
> minimum requirement.
^ If you'd like to see residential landuse mapped then please contribute it
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 13:52, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/09/19 13:30, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au wrote:
> I have not had the time to review OSM Wiki on this, unfortunately. What I
> have seen in the editor is that some mappers have mapped the whole suburb
> with one polygon, while others have mapped every city block. The latter
> sort of makes sense as land is released for auction, city blocks at a time.
> The suburbs are built in stages (four for Whitlam). Each stage is sold
> separately. Sill other mappers have used a hybrid approach, somewhere in
> between these two options.
> How is the best way to approach this?
> I suggest you make the time to read the wiki, think about what the wiki
> says ... BEFORE you ask the list to take their time to educate you.
> OSM is not consistent. Different people do things differently. We don't
> all have the same house, car and bike. OSM is mapped by individual people,
> there will not ever be absolute consistency. Get used to it.
+1 Specifically see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landuse
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-au