I have no problem to use landuse=forest, and not natural=wood for any patch that is "big enough". I would not use it in gardens, especially not private garden. I would try to avoid using it when natural=tree_row is the better choice.
I think landuse=residential is wrong under amenity=school, place_of_worship (except for living area of abbeys). It would be better if we had landuse=education / worship (or something similar). We could recommend to avoid such overlapping. I also saw some discussion recently to let e.g. amenity=pub enclose the complete area with parking, playground etc. of the pub. Some people even split landuse=farmyard, to exclude the living area and use landuse=residential there. I think there is a large gap between the current situation and the very fine detailed mapping of landuse some other mappers are applying. While we can recommend the fine grained mapping, I wonder whether what is the most important thing we have to do with landuse right now. I am more annoyed by connected landuse over paths/tracks. If there is a forest on one side and farmland on the other side of the track, the map should reflect this. So the landuse has to split and both have the end on different sides of the track. But I assume everybody has their own "battles" and priorities. m. On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Lionel Giard <lionel.gi...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's definitely an interesting answer. It seems that dividing the large > landuse=residential is something that we should do (as it seems logical, > even if can be tedious sometimes). > > I did some digging into the wiki for trees tagging and came to these > conclusions. When we think about the key definition of landuse, landcover > (including its proposed page) and natural, i came to the conclusion that the > only landuse tag for tree is "landuse=forest". Because the key "natural" is > described as a landcover representation. It seems that natural=wood is one > of the only special case where a natural tag does represent landuse in > common usage (and it seems wrong relatively to the definition). > > If we follow strict definition, the only landuse tag for trees/forest is > "landuse=forest". The others are for landcover (like the proposed > landcover=trees). Should we then be conservative and use only landuse=forest > in Belgium (especially because the definition for natural=wood is very rare > for us) ? And use landcover tag on top of others landuses if needed (like > for tree in parks). > > Following all these definition note that landuse include the keys landuse=*, > amenity=*, leisure=* and tourism=* all as landuse representation, it implies > that we should also remove the landuse=residential (or any other) where we > have something like amenity=school (because it is already a landuse that > probably better fit than the landuse=residential). What do you think about > that ? > > 2017-04-28 22:16 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com>: >> >> Here is one answer I got, Martin was so kind to put it into a diary >> entry: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/dieterdreist/diary/40993 >> >> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Lionel Giard <lionel.gi...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> But for the roads, ideally, it should ideally be an area (like on the >> >> GRB of >> >> Vlaandereen or the PICC of Wallonia) with also the existing line to >> >> allow >> >> routing. I don't know, if we must change existing residential area when >> >> adding area for the road, because it will probably look good on the >> >> map, but >> >> maybe it would be a problem for people using the data ?! At least it >> >> shouldn't be a problem for the big highways, because they often don't >> >> have >> >> landuse at the moment (look at http://osmlanduse.org/ ). >> > >> > as long as you keep the current way for navigation, and just add >> > area:highway there is no problem. >> > Just follow the area:highway instructions on the wiki and the >> > navigation will not get broken. I experimented with in on a small area >> > and navigation still works. >> > >> > I contacted 2 mappers that map landuse in great detail (one in >> > Germany/Italy, one in Japan) and asked them for some samples. >> > I doubt that multipolygons are the way forward, too complex to >> > maintain I fear. We should look at detailed areas in e.g. Germany and >> > see how they do it. >> > >> > >> > m >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-be mailing list >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > _______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
