[OSM-talk] Mapping streets as areas - can I do it now?

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Mon Feb 22 23:53:05 GMT 2010

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:30 PM, David Paleino <dapal at debian.org> wrote:

> On Monday 22 February 2010 23:26:52, John Smith wrote:
> > On 23 February 2010 08:05, David Paleino <dapal at debian.org> wrote:
> > > I remember someone complaining with me that routers not supporting
> > > highway=* + area=yes in the same relation with a "normal" highway=*,
> > > might get confused -- and that something like "landuse=road" would be
> > > better.
> >
> > Wouldn't landuse=road bleed colour between the way and the area?
> If you noted the link I included in my mail, I haven't used it.
> I think landuse=road is semantically more correct than highway=* + area=yes
> (but this could be debatable too), but the drawback is that renderers have
> the
> burden of colouring landuse=road the same way of its way. If both are in a
> relation, it could probably be done, but I believe it'd take some effort.

Why does the landuse have to be the same color as the way?  I'm pretty sure
I'd prefer it to be a different color by default.

As for semantical correctness, I think that depends on the road.  For roads
without any lines, where people are allowed to drive as they please subject
to a standard rule like "keep right except to pass", I'd say the area is
more semantically correct.  In most standard cases, though, where a road is
lined, simply mapping it as an area is inadequate.

In any case, I'd say landuse=highway would be better than landuse=road, and
that should represent the entire right of way.  If you want *=road,
amenity=road or man_made=road would be more appropriate.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100222/a748acec/attachment.html>

More information about the talk mailing list