[OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways

[Mike Harris]

Thanks to those who responded to this thread. Advice gratefully received.

There seems to be a clear majority preference for option (b) - the more detailed approach that avoids superimposing boundaries of areas (and their nodes) on an adjacent way (and its nodes). I fully understand the two caveats:

1. It is only worth being precise if there is precise data available.
2. There are a few exceptions where, for example, the character of the adjacent area has access features more like that of a normal linear way - the pedestrian area is a good example.

I am persuaded that the advantages of forward compatibility and a higher standard of mapping justify my small efforts (where I have good GPS data) in separating out superimposed areas/ways and using option (b). I am particularly pleased to receive support for splitting single large landuse areas (e.g. =residential or =farm) that cross large numbers of ways.

It is a minor irritant and I didn't want to do the work - or mess with other people's mapping - without a bit of a 'reality check' with more experienced folk in the community.

Thanks again

Mike Harris
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com] 
> Sent: 05 October 2009 15:52
> To: Marc Schütz
> Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways
> 
> 2009/10/5 "Marc Schütz" <schuetzm at gmx.net>:
> >> 2009/10/5 "Marc Schütz" <schuetzm at gmx.net>:
> >> >> But a) could be used as acceptable temporary solution until 
> >> >> someone with better information (like having aerial 
> photography) 
> >> >> remaps it as
> >> >> b)
> >> >
> >> > Yes, this is basically what I wanted to say. Leave it to the 
> >> > mappers
> >> whether they want to use a way or an area for a road.
> >>
> >> it will be much harder to add this detail, if all areas 
> are merged though.
> >
> > Not really. JOSM supports disconnecting ways since a long 
> time now. But anyway: doing things wrong just to make editing 
> easier is not a good thing.
> 
> +1. That's why adjacent landuses (see topic) shouldn't be extented to
> the center of the road.
> 
> >> > But with option (b) and a linear way you would have a 
> gap next to 
> >> > the
> >> road. In the case of landuse, this is not a problem in 
> practice, but 
> >> if there is a place, there you need to insert artificial ways that 
> >> are not there in reality, just to get the connectivity 
> between the two objects:
> >> > http://osm.org/go/0JUKytHID--
> >>
> >> which objects are you referring to? parkings usually have 
> those ways 
> >> (for crossing the sidewalk) so they won't be artificial, and 
> >> pedestrian areas are the exception I mentioned above.
> >
> > Look at the google sat image:
> > 
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=de&geocode=&q=bayreuth&s
> > 
> ll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=59.856937,107.138672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Bayr
> > 
> euth,+Bayern,+Deutschland&ll=49.946316,11.577148&spn=0.000754,0.001635
> > &t=k&z=20
> 
> That's the mentioned pedestrian area. I agree with you here.
> 
> > Mapping it the way it is done there does not really make 
> sense: Either the exact geometry is important for you, then 
> you should convert both the plaza and the road to areas. Or 
> it isn't, but then there shouldn't be a problem with 
> extending the plaza so that it borders to the road.
> 
> +1. but that's still pedestrian areas / highway areas. In these cases
> the areas _do_ connect to the road.
> 
> cheers,
> Martin
> 
> 
>