[Talk-us] Why?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-05 1:14 GMT+01:00 stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com>:

> What I understand Martin Koppenhoefer to say are essentially the same
> things, but I'm not sure if he understands (or agrees) with Escondido
> having large areas marked as landuse=residential.  These are not simply
> zoned residential (they are), they ARE (on-the-ground verifiable)
> residential.  So it is OK for them to be tagged as they are.



Yes, I'm saying the same things. In particular, if you ask me about these
huge landuse polygons in Escondido, I don't particularily like them. I like
detailed mapping, and I believe as soon as someone starts to map the
details he'll have to split these polygons into smaller ones in order to
keep maintainability. I don't suggest to make them multipolygons and to
exclude stuff, this would become a nightmare very soon.

I would exclude (at least) the main arterial roads from the residential
landuse and also stuff like this:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65592897

And when you did this, you'd already have it all split into much smaller
landuse areas.

Cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150305/376b71f2/attachment.html>