[OSM-talk] Residential areas

[Andy Allan]

On 2/15/07, Jochen Topf <jochen at remote.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 05:42:56PM +0100, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > El Jueves 15 de Febrero de 2007 17:27, Ben Robbins escribió:
> > > The agreed answer to this was to have a tag as abutters=none.  This would
> > > be used to stop abutters rendering on residential areas where they are not
> > > wanted.
> >
> > Agreed. A residential bridge renders quite horribly with the default
> > abutters...
>
> Just use highway=unclassified instead. Basically highway=residential is
> short for highway=unclassified plus abutters=residential.

No, you're wrong. highway=residential describes the type of road. If
there are parked cars, children playing on the street, light traffic
and so on. It has no relation to abutters, and is different from
highway=unclassified.

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2006-November/008459.html
and followups

This has been discussed before, and it has been previously said that
land use implications should be marked by landuse areas, not abutters,
which were only a hack whilst there was no way of marking areas. You
can easily have highway=residential with a park on one side and a
primary school on the other.

One day, I hope, someone will get this tagging mess under control.