[OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Tue Oct 6 17:29:34 BST 2009

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>

More information about the talk mailing list