[HOT] Call for Logos for State of the Map Asia 2017

[kshitiz khanal]

Dear all,​

The State of the Map Asia 2017 working group is pleased to announce a call
for logo designs. We need your help to build a strong recognisable logo for
State of the Map Asia 2017 (SotM Asia) conference taking place in
Kathmandu, Nepal. The conference is OpenStreetMap’s annual gathering of the
community, interested parties and others in Asia.

We have put together a Design Brief which outlines what we were looking for
in a logo. Entrants could be an individual or team of people, or even a
design company.

All entries will be considered to give copyright ownership to SotM so that
it can be used across different mediums. Entries have to appear on the wiki
page State Of The Map Asia 2017/Logo entries

by 23:59 UTC (before midnight) on 15th of April 2017. The SotM Asia 2017
working group will decide by vote the logo to go with.

The winning entry will be rewarded with one full weekend ticket to State of
the Map Asia 2017!

For guidelines and other details, please refer to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Call_for_logo_sotm_asia_2017


Regards,


Kshitiz Khanal

Researcher

Kathmandu Living Labs


​
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within landuse=residential

[john whelan]

>Surely population density could be accessed more accurately by numbers of
buildings than by sizes of "blobs", which are outlines very inconsistently ?

I've seen people take the square area of all the buildings and apply a
formula to it that includes the number of storeys.  Not as good as a census
but not bad.

If the buildings are mapped with the JOSM building_tool plugin you stand a
chance.  I know it is possible to map them accurately with iD, I've seen it
done but I do more validation than mapping these days and to be honest yes
there is a building roughly there but the area is quite often twice what it
should be and no two sides are parallel.  Quite often the settlement is
only partially mapped ie half the buildings are missing.  Also its a
question of resources.  Mapping all the buildings in a settlement takes
time much more time than just mapping a landuse=residential for the
settlement.

Now look at the number of projects we have that have been open more than
five years.  Some haven't been touched for years.  We do have a limited
number of mappers, is the best use of them to map buildings in one small
area? If you're a project manager in that small area the answer is probably
yes but from the big picture its probably better to get a few highways and
villages in first.  Then the locals can start to add to the map.  You need
boots on the ground to add detail anyway and hopefully that will give a few
more mappers to add buildings.

Cheerio John



On 29 March 2017 at 18:03, Kretzer  wrote:

> Hi, I was also bothered by the coexistence of very small and very large
> residential area in many loosely populated African areas.
> I agree that the tag seems to make most sense in densely built-up areas -
> to differentiate it from other uses of built-up land, not from open areas.
>
> But I'm not sure about "boundary" either. In Johns original example it was
> suggested to circle clusters of two or three buildings, and I'm not sure
> about the benefits of this. In these cases I think  mapping buildings alone
> would be sufficient. Or am I missing something? In most renderings you can
> see the residential areas in smaller scales as the buildings - so you could
> identify populated areas more easily. Is that a benfit? Or could that be
> solved by different rendering?
>
> Surely population density could be accessed more accurately by numbers of
> buildings than by sizes of "blobs", which are outlines very inconsistently ?
>
>
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 29. März 2017 um 10:33 Uhr
> *Von:* majka 
> *An:* "HOT@openstreetmap.org" 
> *Betreff:* Re: [HOT] Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within
> landuse=residential
>
> First, overlapping landuse areas (even different ones) should *always* be
> corrected. It brings problems with the map data, I have seen and corrected
> areas where the overlapping did hide ponds from the rendered map. The
> *same* overlapping area masks some of the problems but should be
> corrected as well - either by deleting of one of the areas or by merging
> both together.
>
> The next question is the landuse *size* in the mapped area.
>
> From the view of the mapper in Europe, the landuse=residential in HOT is
> problematic. The residential area should be only where the region is used 
> *above
> all* for housing people. The HOT use is to mark areas where there are
> *some* houses, depending on the project instructions. This ends with a
> very problematic rendering of some areas. Visually, you get one big blob of
> something most people understand as a town, not the reality of fields and
> farms. The very loose residential areas shouldn’t be there at all, IMHO.
> Villages/towns boundaries have their own tag, *boundary*. Usually, this
> is paired with boundary=administrative which is mostly unusable for HOT
> distance mapping because the information isn't available to the mapper. But
> nothing speaks against own tag - see here
> .
>
> IMHO, the ideal solution would be to change the HOT practice of mapping
> residential areas. Leave landuse=residential only to the areas, where the
> buildings are densely packed together (even in a village, where there is
> *real* street there might be a residential area) - keeping the common
> interpretation. Give the residential area a lower importance than it has
> now, and start using the boundary instead, for example boundary=residential
> to mark the areas with buildings. A later mapping on the ground or use of
> governmental data if available could then change this in real
> administrative areas marking the hamlets, villages, and towns where
> appropriate and leaving the *residential* boundaries to the rural farm
> areas.
>
> Ideally, such change would be preceded by discussing on the HOT and
> tagging list and followed by updating the wiki definition of a boundary,
> and by updating the HOT materials for users. It would need a slight change
> in 

Re: [HOT] Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within landuse=residential

[Kretzer]

Hi, I was also bothered by the coexistence of very small and very large residential area in many loosely populated African areas. 

I agree that the tag seems to make most sense in densely built-up areas - to differentiate it from other uses of built-up land, not from open areas.  

 

But I'm not sure about "boundary" either. In Johns original example it was suggested to circle clusters of two or three buildings, and I'm not sure about the benefits of this. In these cases I think  mapping buildings alone would be sufficient. Or am I missing something? In most renderings you can see the residential areas in smaller scales as the buildings - so you could identify populated areas more easily. Is that a benfit? Or could that be solved by different rendering?

 

Surely population density could be accessed more accurately by numbers of buildings than by sizes of "blobs", which are outlines very inconsistently ?

 

 


Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. März 2017 um 10:33 Uhr
Von: majka 
An: "HOT@openstreetmap.org" 
Betreff: Re: [HOT] Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within landuse=residential




First, overlapping landuse areas (even different ones) should always be corrected. It brings problems with the map data, I have seen and corrected areas where the overlapping did hide ponds from the rendered map. The same overlapping area masks some of the problems but should be corrected as well - either by deleting of one of the areas or by merging both together.

The next question is the landuse size in the mapped area.

From the view of the mapper in Europe, the landuse=residential in HOT is problematic. The residential area should be only where the region is used above all for housing people. The HOT use is to mark areas where there are some houses, depending on the project instructions. This ends with a very problematic rendering of some areas. Visually, you get one big blob of something most people understand as a town, not the reality of fields and farms. The very loose residential areas shouldn’t be there at all, IMHO. Villages/towns boundaries have their own tag, boundary. Usually, this is paired with boundary=administrative which is mostly unusable for HOT distance mapping because the information isn't available to the mapper. But nothing speaks against own tag - see here.

IMHO, the ideal solution would be to change the HOT practice of mapping residential areas. Leave landuse=residential only to the areas, where the buildings are densely packed together (even in a village, where there is real street there might be a residential area) - keeping the common interpretation. Give the residential area a lower importance than it has now, and start using the boundary instead, for example boundary=residential to mark the areas with buildings. A later mapping on the ground or use of governmental data if available could then change this in real administrative areas marking the hamlets, villages, and towns where appropriate and leaving the residential boundaries to the rural farm areas.

Ideally, such change would be preceded by discussing on the HOT and tagging list and followed by updating the wiki definition of a boundary, and by updating the HOT materials for users. It would need a slight change in JOSM HOT presets and in the iD editor as well, probably. However, it shouldn’t be very difficult to do so.

I understand the residential areas are used for getting population density in the HOT projects. The use of both tags together would be a better choice, getting the information about sparsely and densely populated areas at the same time.

Majka

On 29 March 2017 at 08:10, Vao Matua vaoma...@gmail.com wrote:
>


Nick & John,

Determining where to draw the edge of landuse=residential can be difficult.
Here in Ethiopia most of the population lives in a rural setting where they farm areas of 1 to 10 hectares in size.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/6.9634/38.4408
There are places where people live in villages, but often dwellings are quite dispersed.


​


___ HOT mailing list HOT@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot




___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within landuse=residential

[john whelan]

> I already saw people replacing the landuse=residential tag by place=town
over a precise urban area for some towns in Africa what I think is
basically wrong because these places are generally larger than the
residential area.

I must confess I normally just add a landuse=residential to these.  I'll
quite often come across a new mapper who has used place=hamlet etc.

Cheerio John

On 29 Mar 2017 12:04 pm, "Severin Menard"  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> landuse=residential shows an urban or housing sprawl and therefore can
> cross various existing boundaries. boundary=* is related to an official or
> existing boundary and in the case of a village, it will encompass not only
> one residential area, but sometimes several and other kinds of landuses
> like farmland.
>
> I already saw people replacing the landuse=residential tag by place=town
> over a precise urban area for some towns in Africa what I think is
> basically wrong because these places are generally larger than the
> residential area.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Severin
>
> 2017-03-29 14:03 GMT+02:00 Vao Matua :
>
>> Thomas, thank you for the thoughts.
>>
>> I have looked at the building=farm and landuse=farmyard and believe they
>> do not apply in here in Ethiopia.A building that is a dwelling should not
>> be tagged as "farm". It is not possible to determine the use of a building
>> from aerial imagery. Last week I was in a village and a building that
>> looked like a house also had a room that was where livestock were kept at
>> night. In the same way similar looking buildings could function as a small
>> store (kiosk). I would like to stick with building=yes, but also have a
>> landuse tag that is useful for cartography, but also humanitarian uses like
>> malaria elimination, or population estimates.
>> I would also suggest that boundary is not a good idea in Africa.  In the
>> next decade it is predicted that there will be a huge migration shift to
>> cities, the places these people will live will be outside of existing
>> administrative boundaries. My opinion is that HOT stick with landuse as we
>> see it and let those with authoritative information create the boundaries.
>>
>> Emmor
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Hills 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Firstly this is my first post to the HOT mailing list so I should
>>> introduce myself. I'm Tom Hills (http://www.openstreetmap.org/
>>> user/Thomas%20Hills) and I got involved through Missing Maps London in
>>> August 2014. I'm not a GIS, humanitarian or coding specialist so I'm just a
>>> plain old normal volunteer.
>>>
>>> Majka, I agree with you that landuse=residential isn't particularly
>>> useful in the region Emmor quoted. The wiki suggests that it is for an area
>>> which has predominantly residential buildings. It says that it should not
>>> be used as 'an abstract wrapper around buildings grouping them without a
>>> difference between residential landuse within and other landuses around
>>> being observable'. I know the wiki isn't infallible but that sounds
>>> relatively sensible to me. Of course the region should be mapped in
>>> accordance with the task instructions, but if I were mapping this outside
>>> of HOT I would use a different method.
>>>
>>> I should probably know this already, but what *is* the method for
>>> estimating population density within HOT? I imagined it used building count
>>> rather than residential area size. Is there a diary entry on this?
>>>
>>> Continuing the thought, I am unaware of how long the three or more
>>> buildings 'rule' has been around in HOT, but I remember it from my first
>>> Missing Maps mapathons in 2014. This discussion seems to be a good time to
>>> ask: Has anyone recently reviewed the utility and relevance of the rule for
>>> HOT purposes?
>>>
>>> Emmor: There's specific tags for farms, e.g. building=farm and
>>> landuse=farmland. From what I gather from what you've said and shown, I
>>> think that they might be appropriate instead of your
>>> agriculture_residential and pastoral_agriculture landuse proposals.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> On 29 March 2017 at 09:33, majka  wrote:
>>>
 First, overlapping landuse areas (even different ones) should *always*
 be corrected. It brings problems with the map data, I have seen and
 corrected areas where the overlapping did hide ponds from the rendered map.
 The *same* overlapping area masks some of the problems but should be
 corrected as well - either by deleting of one of the areas or by merging
 both together.

 The next question is the landuse *size* in the mapped area.

 From the view of the mapper in Europe, the landuse=residential in HOT
 is problematic. The residential area should be only where the region is
 used *above all* for housing people. The HOT use is to mark areas
 where there are *some* houses, depending on the project instructions.

Re: [HOT] Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within landuse=residential

[Severin Menard]

Hi,

landuse=residential shows an urban or housing sprawl and therefore can
cross various existing boundaries. boundary=* is related to an official or
existing boundary and in the case of a village, it will encompass not only
one residential area, but sometimes several and other kinds of landuses
like farmland.

I already saw people replacing the landuse=residential tag by place=town
over a precise urban area for some towns in Africa what I think is
basically wrong because these places are generally larger than the
residential area.

Sincerely,

Severin

2017-03-29 14:03 GMT+02:00 Vao Matua :

> Thomas, thank you for the thoughts.
>
> I have looked at the building=farm and landuse=farmyard and believe they
> do not apply in here in Ethiopia.A building that is a dwelling should not
> be tagged as "farm". It is not possible to determine the use of a building
> from aerial imagery. Last week I was in a village and a building that
> looked like a house also had a room that was where livestock were kept at
> night. In the same way similar looking buildings could function as a small
> store (kiosk). I would like to stick with building=yes, but also have a
> landuse tag that is useful for cartography, but also humanitarian uses like
> malaria elimination, or population estimates.
> I would also suggest that boundary is not a good idea in Africa.  In the
> next decade it is predicted that there will be a huge migration shift to
> cities, the places these people will live will be outside of existing
> administrative boundaries. My opinion is that HOT stick with landuse as we
> see it and let those with authoritative information create the boundaries.
>
> Emmor
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Hills 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Firstly this is my first post to the HOT mailing list so I should
>> introduce myself. I'm Tom Hills (http://www.openstreetmap.org/
>> user/Thomas%20Hills) and I got involved through Missing Maps London in
>> August 2014. I'm not a GIS, humanitarian or coding specialist so I'm just a
>> plain old normal volunteer.
>>
>> Majka, I agree with you that landuse=residential isn't particularly
>> useful in the region Emmor quoted. The wiki suggests that it is for an area
>> which has predominantly residential buildings. It says that it should not
>> be used as 'an abstract wrapper around buildings grouping them without a
>> difference between residential landuse within and other landuses around
>> being observable'. I know the wiki isn't infallible but that sounds
>> relatively sensible to me. Of course the region should be mapped in
>> accordance with the task instructions, but if I were mapping this outside
>> of HOT I would use a different method.
>>
>> I should probably know this already, but what *is* the method for
>> estimating population density within HOT? I imagined it used building count
>> rather than residential area size. Is there a diary entry on this?
>>
>> Continuing the thought, I am unaware of how long the three or more
>> buildings 'rule' has been around in HOT, but I remember it from my first
>> Missing Maps mapathons in 2014. This discussion seems to be a good time to
>> ask: Has anyone recently reviewed the utility and relevance of the rule for
>> HOT purposes?
>>
>> Emmor: There's specific tags for farms, e.g. building=farm and
>> landuse=farmland. From what I gather from what you've said and shown, I
>> think that they might be appropriate instead of your
>> agriculture_residential and pastoral_agriculture landuse proposals.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On 29 March 2017 at 09:33, majka  wrote:
>>
>>> First, overlapping landuse areas (even different ones) should *always*
>>> be corrected. It brings problems with the map data, I have seen and
>>> corrected areas where the overlapping did hide ponds from the rendered map.
>>> The *same* overlapping area masks some of the problems but should be
>>> corrected as well - either by deleting of one of the areas or by merging
>>> both together.
>>>
>>> The next question is the landuse *size* in the mapped area.
>>>
>>> From the view of the mapper in Europe, the landuse=residential in HOT is
>>> problematic. The residential area should be only where the region is used 
>>> *above
>>> all* for housing people. The HOT use is to mark areas where there are
>>> *some* houses, depending on the project instructions. This ends with a
>>> very problematic rendering of some areas. Visually, you get one big blob of
>>> something most people understand as a town, not the reality of fields and
>>> farms. The very loose residential areas shouldn’t be there at all, IMHO.
>>> Villages/towns boundaries have their own tag, *boundary*. Usually, this
>>> is paired with boundary=administrative which is mostly unusable for HOT
>>> distance mapping because the information isn't available to the mapper. But
>>> nothing speaks against own tag - see here
>>> 

[HOT] HOT Tasking Manager 3.0 API Technical Discussion - Thur. April 6th, 14:00 GMT

[Blake Girardot HOT/OSM]

Greetings all,

There will be a meeting with the Project Manager and the TM3
developers to discuss the needs for the Tasking Manager 3.0 API.

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the needs the community has
for API based functionality and getting data out of the Tasking
Manager via an API

It will take place via voice on HOT's Uberconference channel:

https://www.uberconference.com/hotosm (no login or download required)

For those that can not attend, but would like to leave your feedback,
comments, etc about the API there is a GitHub issue for this topic,
with a link to the existing API documentation at the top of the
thread:

https://github.com/hotosm/tasking-manager/issues/102

Cheers,
Blake

-- 

Blake Girardot
Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team, TM3 Project Manager
skype: jblakegirardot
HOT Core Team Contact: i...@hotosm.org

___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within landuse=residential

[Vao Matua]

Thomas, thank you for the thoughts.

I have looked at the building=farm and landuse=farmyard and believe they do
not apply in here in Ethiopia.A building that is a dwelling should not be
tagged as "farm". It is not possible to determine the use of a building
from aerial imagery. Last week I was in a village and a building that
looked like a house also had a room that was where livestock were kept at
night. In the same way similar looking buildings could function as a small
store (kiosk). I would like to stick with building=yes, but also have a
landuse tag that is useful for cartography, but also humanitarian uses like
malaria elimination, or population estimates.
I would also suggest that boundary is not a good idea in Africa.  In the
next decade it is predicted that there will be a huge migration shift to
cities, the places these people will live will be outside of existing
administrative boundaries. My opinion is that HOT stick with landuse as we
see it and let those with authoritative information create the boundaries.

Emmor

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Hills  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Firstly this is my first post to the HOT mailing list so I should
> introduce myself. I'm Tom Hills (http://www.openstreetmap.org/
> user/Thomas%20Hills) and I got involved through Missing Maps London in
> August 2014. I'm not a GIS, humanitarian or coding specialist so I'm just a
> plain old normal volunteer.
>
> Majka, I agree with you that landuse=residential isn't particularly useful
> in the region Emmor quoted. The wiki suggests that it is for an area which
> has predominantly residential buildings. It says that it should not be used
> as 'an abstract wrapper around buildings grouping them without a difference
> between residential landuse within and other landuses around being
> observable'. I know the wiki isn't infallible but that sounds relatively
> sensible to me. Of course the region should be mapped in accordance with
> the task instructions, but if I were mapping this outside of HOT I would
> use a different method.
>
> I should probably know this already, but what *is* the method for
> estimating population density within HOT? I imagined it used building count
> rather than residential area size. Is there a diary entry on this?
>
> Continuing the thought, I am unaware of how long the three or more
> buildings 'rule' has been around in HOT, but I remember it from my first
> Missing Maps mapathons in 2014. This discussion seems to be a good time to
> ask: Has anyone recently reviewed the utility and relevance of the rule for
> HOT purposes?
>
> Emmor: There's specific tags for farms, e.g. building=farm and
> landuse=farmland. From what I gather from what you've said and shown, I
> think that they might be appropriate instead of your
> agriculture_residential and pastoral_agriculture landuse proposals.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
> On 29 March 2017 at 09:33, majka  wrote:
>
>> First, overlapping landuse areas (even different ones) should *always*
>> be corrected. It brings problems with the map data, I have seen and
>> corrected areas where the overlapping did hide ponds from the rendered map.
>> The *same* overlapping area masks some of the problems but should be
>> corrected as well - either by deleting of one of the areas or by merging
>> both together.
>>
>> The next question is the landuse *size* in the mapped area.
>>
>> From the view of the mapper in Europe, the landuse=residential in HOT is
>> problematic. The residential area should be only where the region is used 
>> *above
>> all* for housing people. The HOT use is to mark areas where there are
>> *some* houses, depending on the project instructions. This ends with a
>> very problematic rendering of some areas. Visually, you get one big blob of
>> something most people understand as a town, not the reality of fields and
>> farms. The very loose residential areas shouldn’t be there at all, IMHO.
>> Villages/towns boundaries have their own tag, *boundary*. Usually, this
>> is paired with boundary=administrative which is mostly unusable for HOT
>> distance mapping because the information isn't available to the mapper. But
>> nothing speaks against own tag - see here
>> .
>>
>> IMHO, the ideal solution would be to change the HOT practice of mapping
>> residential areas. Leave landuse=residential only to the areas, where the
>> buildings are densely packed together (even in a village, where there is
>> *real* street there might be a residential area) - keeping the common
>> interpretation. Give the residential area a lower importance than it has
>> now, and start using the boundary instead, for example boundary=residential
>> to mark the areas with buildings. A later mapping on the ground or use of
>> governmental data if available could then change this in real
>> administrative areas marking the hamlets, villages, and towns where
>> appropriate and leaving 

Re: [HOT] Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within landuse=residential

[majka]

First, overlapping landuse areas (even different ones) should *always* be
corrected. It brings problems with the map data, I have seen and corrected
areas where the overlapping did hide ponds from the rendered map. The *same*
overlapping area masks some of the problems but should be corrected as well
- either by deleting of one of the areas or by merging both together.

The next question is the landuse *size* in the mapped area.

>From the view of the mapper in Europe, the landuse=residential in HOT is
problematic. The residential area should be only where the region is
used *above
all* for housing people. The HOT use is to mark areas where there are *some*
houses, depending on the project instructions. This ends with a very
problematic rendering of some areas. Visually, you get one big blob of
something most people understand as a town, not the reality of fields and
farms. The very loose residential areas shouldn’t be there at all, IMHO.
Villages/towns boundaries have their own tag, *boundary*. Usually, this is
paired with boundary=administrative which is mostly unusable for HOT
distance mapping because the information isn't available to the mapper. But
nothing speaks against own tag - see here
.

IMHO, the ideal solution would be to change the HOT practice of mapping
residential areas. Leave landuse=residential only to the areas, where the
buildings are densely packed together (even in a village, where there is
*real* street there might be a residential area) - keeping the common
interpretation. Give the residential area a lower importance than it has
now, and start using the boundary instead, for example boundary=residential
to mark the areas with buildings. A later mapping on the ground or use of
governmental data if available could then change this in real
administrative areas marking the hamlets, villages, and towns where
appropriate and leaving the *residential* boundaries to the rural farm
areas.

Ideally, such change would be preceded by discussing on the HOT and tagging
list and followed by updating the wiki definition of a boundary, and by
updating the HOT materials for users. It would need a slight change in JOSM
HOT presets and in the iD editor as well, probably. However, it shouldn’t
be very difficult to do so.

I understand the residential areas are used for getting population density
in the HOT projects. The use of both tags together would be a better
choice, getting the information about sparsely and densely populated areas
at the same time.

Majka

On 29 March 2017 at 08:10, Vao Matua vaoma...@gmail.com
 wrote:
>

Nick & John,

Determining where to draw the edge of landuse=residential can be difficult.
Here in Ethiopia most of the population lives in a rural setting where they
farm areas of 1 to 10 hectares in size.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/6.9634/38.4408
There are places where people live in villages, but often dwellings are
quite dispersed.

​
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot

Re: [HOT] Fwd: Re: landuse=residential within landuse=residential

[Vao Matua]

Nick & John,

Determining where to draw the edge of landuse=residential can be difficult.
Here in Ethiopia most of the population lives in a rural setting where they
farm areas of 1 to 10 hectares in size.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/6.9634/38.4408
There are places where people live in villages, but often dwellings are
quite dispersed.

I would suggest that an additional landuse tag would be appropriate.

landuse=rural_residential ?
landuse=agriculture_residential ?
landuse=pastoral_agriculture ?

Additionally the highway tagging needs to be updated as well.

highway=rural_residential
deprecate highway=unclassified for highway=minor_road

These are some of the topics that I am hoping will be discussed at SOTM
Africa in Kampala in July. http://sotmafrica.org/ 

Emmor Nile
(Palolo)

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:58 PM, Nick Allen  wrote:

> Sorry
>
> Missed the list with my reply.
>
> Nick (OSM=Tallguy)
> my phone is responsible for any spelling mistakes!
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "Nick Allen" 
> Date: 28 Mar 2017 19:57
> Subject: Re: [HOT] landuse=residential within landuse=residential
> To: "john whelan" 
> Cc:
>
> I think it depends on the project instructions.
>
> For instance the Aweil tasks such as http://tasks.hotosm.org/project/2525
> Have a link to a very good diary entry with good screenshots indicating
> largish residential boundaries.
>
> Some of the others say something like 2 buildings.
>
> Nick (OSM=Tallguy)
> my phone is responsible for any spelling mistakes!
>
> On 28 Mar 2017 18:48, "john whelan"  wrote:
>
> I'm starting to see areas where someone has mapped a largish area
> landuse=residential and other mappers have tightly mapped groups of
> buildings and tagged landuse=residential within this.
>
> I'm not sure whether to ignore them or delete one or the other?
>
> Thoughts please.
>
> Thanks John
>
> ___
> HOT mailing list
> HOT@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
>
>
> ___
> HOT mailing list
> HOT@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
>
___
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot