[OSM-talk] Residential areas

[Etienne]

On 10/31/06, David Earl <david at frankieandshadow.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org
> > [mailto:talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org]On Behalf Of
> > matthew-osm at newtoncomputing.co.uk
> > Sent: 31 October 2006 18:00
> > To: SteveC
> > Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Residential areas
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:40:26PM +0000, SteveC wrote:
> > > * @ 31/10/06 04:14:48 PM 80n80n at gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Tom
> > > > I am now tagging streets as highway=unclassified instead of
> > >
> > > Is this not illogical? (eg, it _is_ classified) can we not keep
> > > highway=residential but just drop the abutters?
> >

The reason for not continuing to use highway=residential is for
back-compatability reasons.

If you use landuse=residential then you can be more precise.   For example,
shading just one side of a road.  However, if the road is tagged as
highway=residential you'll still get the shading on both sides of the road.

One way of preventing that is to switch off the abutters rendering rule for
highway=residential, but then you loose the abutters everywhere else on the
map.  So unless you fix the whole town you don't any real benefit from using
the landuse tag.

Does the following proposal satisfy all the requirements:
1) Preserve the current rendering behaviour of highway=residential (but mark
it as deprecated)
2) Use highway=unclassified, residential=yes to mark up roads with houses
along them
3) Use landuse=residential to demarcate the residential areas
4) Do not overlap areas that use the landuse tag unless they really do
overlap and are tagged as different layers.


80n




> I agree.
> >
> > Generally residential roads are not classified (they are C-prefix
> > roads, which...
>
> I agree too, for a different reason: it is much simpler to just tag the
> roads than create residential areas, so it is more likely to get done.
>
> However, some roads need an equivalent of abutters which is not
> residential,
> and while they possibly are unclassified roads, they want to be rendered
> differently from either residential (grey stripe) or unclassified (no
> stripe). This is why I proposed highway=urban, for a typical urban street
> like a high street with a mixture of premises.
>
> But even this doesn't really work all that well, as you can have
> highway=primary High Streets, which need the abutters-like stripes
> alongside. Maybe an 'abutters' tag on the way might be the way to do it,
> which overrides the kind of road when rendering. We can still abolish
> abutters on the segments (and get rid of segments too), but have the
> convenience of a simple rendering.
>
> There's also some residential roads which are more important than others.
> But someone has a proposal in for a tag which provides a hierarchy like
> this, which I think does the job there.
>
> But at the moment it sounds like there's no consistency, so there's going
> to
> be problems rendering stuff in the future.
>
> David
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061031/4f3af606/attachment.html>