Jo <[email protected]> wrote: > Reusing the nodes of the ways seems like the correct way to define > landuse > when the landuse is different on both sides of the street. If not done > that > way, there are ugly with stripes/triangles between the roads and the > landuse when plotting the map at high zoom scale. > > Landuse is drawn first, the road network is drawn over it. So when the > landuse is the same on both sides of the road, there is no need to > draw > more than one landuse. The road simply goes over it. No problem. > > Suppose I'm drawing a (large) forest. Then I draw landuse around the > treeline and roads/tracks/footways across the forest. No need to draw > many > small forests. The same goes for residential/commercial or industrial > landuse. > > Just my 2 cents, > > Polyglot >
If you have a divided street with a center median, would each landuse extend to the center of that median? For certain circumstances, where the right-of-way is quite broad (for example, at motorway interchanges), it would make sense to record the right-of-way as an area, with its own landuse tag. The proposed landuse=highway would be the logical value to use. I can think of a couple of examples here in Nashville, Tennessee, USA, where an interchange is about a kilometer across. -- John F. Eldredge -- [email protected] "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
