I like to explain it in terms of land usage, people reside here on the land in some way, therefore landuse=residential that is how it works best in my experience. Fits fully within local mapping partners and people and is well understood HOT/OSM usage. It also works well for revisions in the future. It is the most general people-reside-on-the-land tagging and can be refined with more detail and specificity in the future without being incorrect now or losing any of the history of the original object.
Cheers, Blake On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Russell Deffner <[email protected]> wrote: > Ah, but actual village/place boundaries can't really be determined via > imagery; so we 'traditionally' mark areas that look residential/lived in with > landuse=residential and handle any place boundaries with import, etc. > =Russ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Norman [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 4:54 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [HOT] Quick question on village mapping > > On 10/28/2015 2:53 AM, Pete Masters wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> If you are adding field data to an existing shape >> (landuse=residential), would you tag the shape as place=village / >> name=whatever or would you add a node and tag the node. >> >> I've generally done the latter, but am seeing quite a few villages in >> Chad that conform to the former. > > landuse is not for mapping places, but land usage. If you want to show > the extents of a village, use a place polygon. If the extents of the two > are the same, you could put them both on the same object. > > _______________________________________________ > HOT mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot > > > _______________________________________________ > HOT mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot _______________________________________________ HOT mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
