[OSM-talk-ie] Landuse

[Colm Moore]

Hi,

> Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 01:19:26 +0200
> From: moltonel 3x Combo <moltonel at gmail.com>
>
> Landuse is a bit tricky in OSM because it has a large part of subjectivity. 

Agreed, it is more about the general feel of an area than the literal presence or absence of particular features.

> How wide does a street need to be before we stop including it in the landuse ? 

I think a useful test is whether the adjacent sites have direct access to the road or not. In most areas, adjacent sites will have direct access to the road, but with motorways and other express road, there is substantial detachment between the road and its surrounds. 

> How all-encompassing should landuse=farmland be ? 

Is it a farm? For the farm house / buildings, one can use landuse=farm. Note that OSM will over-ride general features (landuse=residential) with specific features (landuse=grass, leisure=park) http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/53.33614/-6.22972

> Should we have lots of single-house landuse=residential in the countryside ? 

I think yes. For non-farm houses, I think they should get landuse=residential. However, sometimes one has to be pragmatic, especially if the site is greater than about 0.25 hectares, in which case the landuse=residential should be 'shrink-wrapped' around the buildings / other residential features. http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/52261213#map=17/53.42090/-6.54835

> What's up with landuse=forest vs natural=wood ? 

Historically, a 'forest' could cover hundreds of square kilometres, a 'wood' would cover a few hectares. OSM users tend to make the distinction along the lines of natural / wild tree cover -v- managed tree cover.

> FWIW, I tend to trace buildings first and landuse later (though sometimes I lose patience). 

Should we be doing it the other way around? Map the larger object first (village built-up area, housing estate), then add the details (individual houses, etc.)?

> Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:35:49 +0200
> From: Rory McCann <rory at technomancy.org>
>
> Conversely, I've seen rough landuse=residental drawn over a few houses
> which are strung out in rural ireland. Most of the area inside the
> area is fields, not residential. 

I would use landuse=residential for the house and their gardens, but not fields. :) Note that there is agricultural land only 3km from O'Connell Bridge.

> That's not accurate. Map the
> individual houses, but you don't need a residential landuse for a few
> houses in rural areas.
>
> And not everywhere in OSM needs to be in a "landuse" tag.

I disagree. When OSM is 'finished', everywhere should have a landuse, even if it is landuse=desert or landuse=glacier. :) However, I think Mapnik (standard OSM layer) shows too much, especially when it comes to landcover - it makes it difficult to split the exceptional from the non-exceptional. Maybe that is a human-orientated view, but, hey, we're humans! :)

> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:13:49 +0200
> From: Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com>
> 
> Isn't every land in use ? How can we calculate the total amount of
> square meters of land used for living if you do not draw a
> landuse=residential around each small group of houses ?

I concur.

> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 12:43:09 +0100
> From: Dave Corley <davecorley at gmail.com>
> 
> I've mapped landuse=residential out in the country side though not to a
> huge extent but as far as I can tell there's no reason not to (open to
> correction). What I mean is, if it's a residential property and would get
> mapped as such in the city, the fact it's in the countryside should make no
> difference, the same tagging applies.

I concur.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead