[Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

Thu Sep 24 16:40:19 UTC 2020

Another vote for Evin and Minh's interpretation.

I've been tagging named, signed, suburban (in the US sense)
subdivisions with landuse=residential and name=*.

I make no distinction among the subdivisions that consist of
apartments, terraces, or detached houses (except when mapping the
buildings themselves): thus, I've mapped 'Hillcrest Villaage' and 'Van
Antwerp Village' (apartment complexes), 'Village Meadow' and 'Country
Gardens' (condos), 'Orchard Park' (mixed condos and detached houses)
and 'Hawthorne Hill' (detached houses) all as landuse=residential
name=*.

I overlap natural=wood where appropriate, since the overlap of landuse
and landcover causes no conflict. I work similarly with
amenity=parking when the parking lot is part of the community. If
there's landuse=basin, landuse=religious, or something similar inside
the area, I make a cutout, since those are conflicting land uses, even
if the drainage basin or church is part of the planned community.

I've contemplated using place=neighbourhood (on either node or way)
with them, but eventually concluded that it was too subjective a
decision for whether residents would self-identify their neighbourhood
as being the same as their subdivision.  To someone from Niskayuna,
New York, I might say that I live in Orchard Park, or that Andrea
lives in Windsor Estates - the locals know most of the subdivision
names, and many of them have the names of the main entrance roads
match the name of the subdivision (Orchard Park Road, Windsor Drive).
To someone who isn't local, I'd more likely reference cross streets or
landmarks: "the subdivision on the north side of the high school". I
have no problem, though, with putting the name of the subdivision on
the landuse=residential polygon: the names are signed and
field-verifiable.

When I'm micromapping a neighbourhood, I do map private swimming pools
because the fire department appreciates it.

I try to respect privacy, and map landuse=residential on individual
lots only when the lot is completely surrounded by other land uses.
That case is hard to reconcile with privacy: if someone owns a parcel
that has park land (in the US sense) on two sides, a wastewater plant
on a third, and a river on the fourth, the parcel is going to be
visible in any case as the hole among the other land uses.  To have it
not be deducible, I'd have to refrain from mapping one or another of
the adjoining facilities, and I think we all agree that parks,
wastewater plants and rivers are objects that ought to be mapped.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:48 AM Evin Fairchild <evindfair at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I totally agree with Minh here. I always thought that it was standard parctice in OSM to add the name tag to a landuse=residential way that encompasses the subdivision. Subdivision names aren't always used in common parlance (especially if it's a smaller subdivision) so most people wouldn't necessarily consider the subdivision name to be the name of the neighborhood that they live in.
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 12:44 AM Minh Nguyen <minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us> wrote:
>>
>> Vào lúc 18:40 2020-09-22, Paul Johnson đã viết:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:36 PM Mike N
>> > <niceman at att.net
>> > <mailto:niceman at att.net>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     On 9/22/2020 9:26 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> >      >         The extra hamlet nodes are import remainders that haven't
>> >     yet been
>> >      >     converted to landuse areas.   The general landuse zones for
>> >     that area
>> >      >     have been identified, but do not exactly correspond to the named
>> >      >     subdivisions.   As I get a chance to survey, I divide the
>> >     landuse into
>> >      >     subdivisions and convert the node to a named area for the
>> >     subdivision.
>> >      >
>> >      >
>> >      > Please don't expand these as landuse, please expand them as
>> >      > place=neighborhood instead.  Landuse polygons should be congruent
>> >     to the
>> >      > actual land use.
>> >
>> >     That's a good point: the subdivisions often contain one or more landuse
>> >     basins, clusters of trees, etc.   I've been thinking of them as one big
>> >     blob, but it seem correct on a more micromap level to mark them as
>> >     place=, and identify the smaller landuse areas (which are sometimes all
>> >     residential).
>> >
>> >
>> > Exactly.  My rule of thumb is if you're thinking about putting a name on
>> > it, and it's not a shopping center, apartment complex or similar large
>> > but contiguous landuse, then landuse=* probably isn't what your polygon
>> > should be.
>>
>> It's common, intuitive, and IMO beneficial to map a planned,
>> suburban-style residential development as a single named
>> landuse=residential area. These developments have well-defined
>> boundaries and are primarily residential in character. If there are some
>> wooded lots in the subdivision, it's perfectly fine to map a
>> natural=wood area inside of or partially overlapping the
>> landuse=residential area, ideally without being connected to it. This
>> approach is supported by longstanding documentation [1], old threads
>> [2], and good support in both renderers [3] and search engines.
>>
>> There have also been old discussions where folks have conflated the
>> concept of landcover with landuse. [4] But I find this approach overly
>> academic. Taking it to the logical extreme, landuse=residential would
>> only be coincident to each house in a subdivision, given that the yards
>> are non-dwellings.
>>
>> I don't see the need for a fundamental distinction between planned
>> residential developments consisting of multi-family apartments and those
>> consisting of single-family houses, such that the former would be mapped
>> as a coherent landuse area but the latter would be a shapeless place
>> point. Where there's no such distinction, the landuse areas lend
>> themselves to ab intuitive rendering that's good for navigating suburban
>> sprawl. [5]
>>
>> If a planned development truly is actually mixed-use, and not only in a
>> garden-level micromapping sense, then something other than landuse=*
>> would be reasonable, since a particular landuse doesn't characterize
>> that development anyways. Named landuse=residential areas also don't
>> tend to make as much sense in urban areas, older inner suburbs, and
>> rural areas. But the areas in changeset 91255294 aren't mixed-use
>> developments; they're residential areas in a suburban setting.
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1087300
>> [2] I previously wrote on this topic in
>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-June/011131.html> and
>> it seemed like other respondents were taking the same approach.
>> [3] https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/351
>> [4]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2017-January/019811.html
>> [5] https://osm.org/go/ZTVSa4OB
>>
>> --
>> minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin