[OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways

[Anthony]

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:56 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/10/7 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:
> > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:21 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 2009/10/7 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:
> >> > Most sidewalks pretty much meet that criterion, and roads sort of meet
> >> > it
> >> > (not at intersections, though).
> >>
> >> There is a landuse area around roads that isn't part of surrounding
> >> property boundaries.
> >
> > I'm quite aware of that, and that's why I think there should be a
> > landuse=right_of_way, completely separate from the "highway".
> >
> > I wonder, how do others define "highway", if not as "a path of travel"?
> It
> > contains such things as roads, sidewalks, and dirt paths, and presumably
> > also includes paths of travel which are completely unbuilt (the unpaved
> > grass on the side of the road gets a "highway" tag, right?)."
> >
>
> landuse=road_reserve ?
>

I'm not sure they're always used for roads, but good enough!  I'm planning
on implementing this, probably in the next few weeks (though it may be a few
months, and I may have a small scale run within a week or two).  Should I
use landuse=road_reserve, landuse=right_of_way, or not bother tagging those
areas at all?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Chris Morley <c.morley at gaseq.co.uk> wrote:

> Landuse areas which cross a large number of ways are very common.
> Surely you don't intend to divide say, Delamere Forest, into a large
> number of separated areas separated by the paths and tracks?
>

In that case, you shouldn't, because the paths and tracks are part of the
forest.  Likewise, you wouldn't split the landuse at a service highway which
goes through a landuse=commercial.  But that's not an example of "landuse"
abutting a "highway", it's an example of a "highway" cutting through a
"landuse".  "Landuse" and "highway" are really independent concepts, aren't
they?  The main counterexample where you *would* have a "landuse" abutting a
"highway" is in the case of "pedestrian areas", which are tagged as
"highway" in addition to being tagged as "landuse", right?

Whether or not a "highway" should cut through a "landuse=residential" or
"landuse=farm" is probably jurisdiction dependent.  Where I live there are
specific areas of land set aside for roads and other specific areas of land
set aside for houses.  Seems to me like a clear case for separate "landuse"
areas, no?

If you don't have the data to separate out the two, that's fine.  I don't
mind "highway" ways cutting through "landuse" areas so much.  But that's not
the same as using the "highway" way as the border to your "landuse" area.
The only way I can see doing that is when the "landuse" area is *also* a
"highway" area.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20091006/bd6e71d7/attachment.html>