[Talk-us] Why?

[stevea]

Martin Koppenhoefer writes:
>landuse in OSM should be the actual landuse, not the legally 
>permitted / designed landuse (zoning).

I do not disagree (meaning "I agree"), however:  if my 
quarter-hectare property of low density residential zoning has a 
house, fences, a garage, lawns, a creek running along the backside of 
it and so is largely a riparian corridor, a garden and so on, are you 
saying that it is incorrect for me to have included my parcel in a 
larger "neighborhood" of landuse=residential (along with my 
neighbors), even though I don't include all of these specific 
"micro-mapping" elements?  Where do you draw the lines of where 
appropriate landuse=residential tagging begin and end?

And again, as large areas (called "neighborhoods" or "quarters" or 
"districts" in any given local parlance) truly are exclusively 
residential, I still maintain that drawing an appropriate polygon 
around them and tagging landuse=residential is correct.  This (again) 
is NOT the same as saying that they cannot be made MORE correct, 
rather that such tagging is "a good first step" and not entirely 
incorrect.

Perhaps a superior/outstanding example of what you consider to be 
GOOD landuse tagging is now in order.  Thank you in advance for a 
link to such data.  It is easy to point someplace and say it is 
wrong, or bad, or needs further explanation (OSM has plenty of 
those).  It is a bit more difficult (though possible) to point to 
areas (such as Escondido) and say "they are on the right path to 
completion, but are not yet done."  It is yet more difficult to point 
to excellent examples of landuse= tagging, so I now politely ask you 
to do so.

Let's not let perfection be the enemy of the good.  If everything 
entered into OSM had to be perfect upon its initial upload, we'd 
still be back in the Stone Age of data entry.  OSM is a work in 
progress, and likely always will be.  We can strive for excellence 
without demanding perfection.

SteveA
California