[OSM-talk-be] Land-use mapping with OSM in Belgium

Lionel Giard lionel.giard at gmail.com
Sat Apr 29 13:42:26 UTC 2017


That's definitely an interesting answer. It seems that dividing the large
landuse=residential is something that we should do (as it seems logical,
even if can be tedious sometimes).

I did some digging into the wiki for trees tagging and came to these
conclusions. When we think about the key definition of landuse
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse>, landcover
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover> (including its proposed page
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover>) and
natural <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural>, i came to the
conclusion that the only landuse tag for tree is "landuse=forest". Because
the key "natural" is described as a landcover representation. It seems that
natural=wood is one of the only special case where a natural tag does
represent landuse in common usage (and it seems wrong relatively to the
definition).

If we follow strict definition, the only landuse tag for trees/forest is
"landuse=forest". The others are for landcover (like the proposed
landcover=trees). Should we then be conservative and use only
landuse=forest in Belgium (especially because the definition for
natural=wood is very rare for us) ? And use landcover tag on top of others
landuses if needed (like for tree in parks).

Following all these definition note that landuse include the keys
landuse=*,  amenity=*, leisure=* and tourism=* all as landuse
representation, it implies that we should also remove the
landuse=residential (or any other) where we have something like
amenity=school (because it is already a landuse that probably better fit
than the landuse=residential).  What do you think about that ?

2017-04-28 22:16 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com>:

> Here is one answer I got, Martin was so kind to put it into a diary
> entry: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/dieterdreist/diary/40993
>
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Lionel Giard <lionel.giard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> But for the roads, ideally, it should ideally be an area (like on the
> GRB of
> >> Vlaandereen or the PICC of Wallonia) with also the existing line to
> allow
> >> routing. I don't know, if we must change existing residential area when
> >> adding area for the road, because it will probably look good on the
> map, but
> >> maybe it would be a problem for people using the data ?! At least it
> >> shouldn't be a problem for the big highways, because they often don't
> have
> >> landuse at the moment (look at http://osmlanduse.org/ ).
> >
> > as long as you keep the current way for navigation, and just add
> > area:highway there is no problem.
> > Just follow the area:highway instructions on the wiki and the
> > navigation will not get broken. I experimented with in on a small area
> > and navigation still works.
> >
> > I contacted 2 mappers that map landuse in great detail (one in
> > Germany/Italy, one in Japan) and asked them for some samples.
> > I doubt that multipolygons are the way forward, too complex to
> > maintain I fear. We should look at detailed areas in e.g. Germany and
> > see how they do it.
> >
> >
> > m
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
-------------- section suivante --------------
Une pièce jointe HTML a été nettoyée...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20170429/9097760f/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-be mailing list