[OSM-talk] New tool in Potlatch 2 for areas that share a way

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Feb 1 11:13:11 GMT 2011

2011/2/1 Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:48 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> probably no. Landuse is describing the actual usage of the land. If
>> there is only grass, it cannot be considered industrial, regardless of
>> who owns the land.
> Problem with that ruling is you would end up with tiny little
> odd-shaped pockets of "industry" separated by space.

depends on the region. I try to tag industrial areas as continuous
space as well. In your example above the question would be what is the
context. If this site is surrounded by industry, and it is officially
declared "industrial area" it would probably best be tagged as
industrial. On the other hand there is  industrial areas in less
urbanized situations, where inside there is farmland / a farmyard,
e.g. (map not complete ;-) ):

> Whereas I think a
> large, unbroken region like this: http://osm.org/go/uGt0Ttv7- is
> actually a lot more informative.

less information can hardly be more informative IMHO.

> Furthermore, you might be reduced to categorising individual elements
> of the factory. Would the administrative wing really be
> landuse=industrial? Surely it should be landuse=commercial. etc etc.

I would tag the administrative wing  as well industrial. This kind of
detail you are requesting now would be mapping at the building level
(and attached to the building IMHO, not to the land)

> I don't think there's any single answer that can give the right
> information to every consumer. Sometimes OSM has to make actual
> choices between different uses of the data.

who is "OSM" and how can they make "actual choices between different
uses of the data"?


More information about the talk mailing list