[OSM-talk] Residential areas

[Andy Allan]

On 11/1/06, Etienne <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/1/06, Tom Chance <tom at acrewoods.net> wrote:
>
> > I think this is all getting too complicated, and if we ever move to
> > Andy's
> > improved schema it will also be slightly pointless. It seems like we all
> > have
> > different data we'd like tagged to roads (should navigation software
> > send you
> > down it, are kids playing on this street, how should a pretty map render
> > it,
> > how does it fit into $my_country's road classification schema, etc.).
> >
> > I don't see what's wrong with highway=residential for now,
>
>
> The problem with highway=residential is that the abbutters creep out from
> under the landuse=residential zones and make the map look ugly.
>

Personally, I think the root problem is using attributes of the road to
imply landuse on either side of it. The road outside the front of a corner
shop might be a residential road, and should be tagged as such. But nothing
should be implied about the land use from the type of road nearby. Think of
a large housing estate with an area of open ground in the middle of it -
think modern developments - all the roads are residential roads (quiet,
parked cars, children playing football), but you can't extrapolate from that
to imply that there are houses on either side. Same if we went for a
highway=industrial - an access road to a quarry that goes past the back
gardens of houses - highway=industrial shouldn't imply that the landuse on
either side of the road is industrial.

So my vote is to tag roads with the correct thing for the road, and tag
landuse by using areas, and take abutters (how many meters deep should shops
be implied by abutters=commercial? See the problem?) and all such
implications and throw them away.

Andy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20061101/affa9599/attachment.html>