[Talk-GB] What is a residential area?

[Dave F]

Your OSM example look fine to me - a single property is still where 
people reside. Any other details, such as garden, should be mapped 
individually within that area.

The mistake early in OSM's life was to use this tag to indicate a 
village/town/city as a whole, with a blanket polygon covering the whole 
urban area, but now most contributors are detailing it around schools, 
parks etc.

One problem that's still not been fully resolved is areas of dual usage, 
ie residential properties above shops. Personally I lean towards mapping 
the shops clearly as they're more likely to be searched for.

DaveF


On 07/05/2019 11:11, Martin Wynne wrote:
> What is a "residential area" in the iD editor? How many dwellings are 
> needed in what proximity to become one? Is it a physical plot of land 
> on which at least one person lives? Or the usual meaning of a 
> village/hamlet/housing estate/suburb where a number of people live?
>
> In my patch there are lots of instances where a single house or an 
> isolated pair of cottages along a country road have been mapped as a 
> "residential area". Which seems a strange use of words to me.
>
> See for example:
>
>  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/611028880
>
> Google streetview:
>
>  https://goo.gl/maps/yk1SNzrmRPpvZL3Y6
>
> Perhaps it's the iD editor at fault? landuse=residential is strictly 
> correct, but calling it a "residential area" doesn't accord with most 
> folks understanding of the term.
>
> I tend to change them to leisure=garden, access=private. When I do 
> that, the iD editor removes the landuse=residential tag. Should it? 
> Should I put it back?  I also put a fence or hedge or wall around or 
> between them if visible on Bing, add the buildings, and a name if it's 
> known to me or shown on OS OpenData.
>
> But is that the correct thing to do? If I do one, am I obliged to do 
> all the others nearby? Users of OSM might legitimately wonder why some 
> properties and residents are singled out for this treatment, and 
> others are not? Should we concentrate on adding detail, or aim for 
> uniformity of treatment?
>
> cheers,
>
> Martin.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb