[OSM-talk] Residential areas

[Etienne]

On 11/3/06, Andy Robinson <Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Tom Chance wrote:
> >Sent: 03 November 2006 12:48 PM
> >To: talk at openstreetmap.org
> >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Residential areas
> >
> >Ahoy,
> >
> >On Friday 03 November 2006 12:25, David Earl wrote:
> >> The problem is abutters on *segments*, yes?
> >
> >No. If you've followed the discussion, the problem is with abutters
> >themselves. They:
> >
> >- Are ugly when compared to landuse areas
> >- Don't currently cater for different uses on each side of a way
> >- Don't give much detail for handy uses, e.g. it's a residential road so
> >it's
> >best to avoid it if possible in routing software, or it has great big
> >warehouses on the right so look out for them, etc.
> >
> >The consensus, so far as I can tell, is to deprecate abutters somehow*,
> >move
> >towards using landuse areas for shading on maps and keep in mind handy
> uses
> >for the stuff on either side of a road when working on Andy's new tagging
> >schema.
> >
>
> My take on this is as follows.
>
> An abutter is something/someone that abuts against the feature. In our
> current discussion case we are principally referring to the fact that we
> have certain types of abutters running alongside and immediately adjacent
> to
> highways. In this respect the abutter tag on a highway is correct. However
> the point is taken that it would be useful to define different abutter
> types
> to the different sides of the highway.
>
> The abutters tag was used to make a pseudo rendering of land use before
> area
> functionality was brought in. Now that we have area support (at least a
> method of rendering anyway) it is right that for the colouring of landmass
> we should where possible use an area feature.
>
> However the abutters tag is still of interest and use because it allows an
> association to be made between a feature and its immediate neighbour. That
> may have a number of uses in the future.
>
> Therefore I believe that the abutters tag on highways should remain
> without
> deprecation. However I would agree that we should move away from colouring
> landmass using the abutters tag in osmarender.


I'm inclined to agree with this analysis, with one slight reservation.
Removing the rendering of abutters from the Osmarender rules file will have
a negative(*) effect until landuse areas are added to replace them.

If this is acceptable, then the plan would be:
1) Remove all rendering of abutters from Osmarender rules files
2) Continue using the current practice of tagging roads as
highway=residential and abutters=retail | residential | commercial | etc
3) Describe residential zones etc using the landuse tags which will then be
rendered appropriately.

If you have an opinion, please vote +1 / -1 on this proposal.

80n

* If you consider that removing the ugly rendering of abutters is a negative
effect.









Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
> Andy Robinson
> Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk
>
> >Regards,
> >Tom
> >
> >* Whether with Etienne's suggestion of
> highway=unclassified,residential=yes
> >leaving abutters in place for highway=residential, or by simply removing
> >abutters from osmarender altogether.
> >
> >--
> >The struggle against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting
> > - Kundera
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >talk mailing list
> >talk at openstreetmap.org
> >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20061103/d77ac6e1/attachment.html>