[OSM-talk] New Google Maps style - interesting cartographic innovation

[David Fisher]

Maybe I was unclear, or maybe we're talking at cross-purposes (or
maybe I'm just wrong!).  You're quite right, a fair share of built-up
areas are residential -- I would go further and say that the
*majority* of built-up areas are residential!  But I don't mean using
a single giant polygon to denote a particular settlement.  I agree
with you there.  Rather, I mean ensuring that all major residential
areas surrounding the "high street/CBD/whatever" of a settlement are
covered by a network of "landuse=residential" polygons.  The density
of these polygons is up to the mapper, starting with larger, rougher
polygons which can be granularised as time goes by.  I don't see why
this is mapping for the renderer, any more than covering an area of
forest, visible on aerial imagery, with a large, rough
"natural=wood/forest" polygon would be, in the absence of anything
better.

Out of interest, do you also take issue with the central point of my
last post -- that "landuse=retail" polygons may be seen as a similar
sort of concept to Google's beige areas?  (assuming such polygons are
placed by mappers who have at least a passing knowledge of the area in
question)

Thanks,

David.




On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> Il giorno 11 ago 2016, alle ore 15:10, David Fisher <djfisher81 at gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>
>>  (I'm also a fan of
>> "landuse=residential" polygons to highlight built-up areas, though I
>> know some OSM-ers disagree.)
>
>
> I believe most OSMers, including the wiki, disagree. Sounds like a clear case of mapping for the renderer (presuming it's built up but not residential of course, a fair share of built up areas in settlements are indeed residential landuse).
> Why don't you use place polygons?
>
>
> cheers,
> Martin