Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Landuse

[Colm Moore]

Hi,

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/51.9065/-8.1553

Midleton is a useful example of the different types of housing development. I 
added most of the landuse in the town. Around the centre of the town there are 
lots of mixed use streets, that aren't readily decipherable from the Bing 
photos. While I visited the town a fair bit when I was younger, I haven't been 
there in 20 years, so my local knowledge isn't great.

Ignoring the gaps in information, the one section that definitely merits change 
is Carrigshane, where there are clusters of houses and farm buildings marked 
landuse=residential

> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 05:24:13 +0200
> From: Marc Gemis 
> 
> JOSM complains about using landuse=farm. IMHO you have to use farmyard
> for the farm house / buildings.

Yes, apologies. I have only mapped 7 of these, so haven't really studied it.

Colm

---
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the 
world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead
  
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Landuse

[Marc Gemis]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:11 AM, Colm Moore  wrote:
>> How all-encompassing should landuse=farmland be ?
>
> Is it a farm? For the farm house / buildings, one can use landuse=farm. Note 
> that OSM will over-ride general features (landuse=residential) with specific 
> features (landuse=grass, leisure=park) 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/53.33614/-6.22972

JOSM complains about using landuse=farm. IMHO you have to use farmyard
for the farm house / buildings.

m

___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Landuse

[Colm Moore]

Hi,

> Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 01:19:26 +0200
> From: moltonel 3x Combo 
>
> Landuse is a bit tricky in OSM because it has a large part of subjectivity. 

Agreed, it is more about the general feel of an area than the literal presence 
or absence of particular features.

> How wide does a street need to be before we stop including it in the landuse 
> ? 

I think a useful test is whether the adjacent sites have direct access to the 
road or not. In most areas, adjacent sites will have direct access to the road, 
but with motorways and other express road, there is substantial detachment 
between the road and its surrounds. 

> How all-encompassing should landuse=farmland be ? 

Is it a farm? For the farm house / buildings, one can use landuse=farm. Note 
that OSM will over-ride general features (landuse=residential) with specific 
features (landuse=grass, leisure=park) 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/53.33614/-6.22972

> Should we have lots of single-house landuse=residential in the countryside ? 

I think yes. For non-farm houses, I think they should get landuse=residential. 
However, sometimes one has to be pragmatic, especially if the site is greater 
than about 0.25 hectares, in which case the landuse=residential should be 
'shrink-wrapped' around the buildings / other residential features. 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/52261213#map=17/53.42090/-6.54835

> What's up with landuse=forest vs natural=wood ? 

Historically, a 'forest' could cover hundreds of square kilometres, a 'wood' 
would cover a few hectares. OSM users tend to make the distinction along the 
lines of natural / wild tree cover -v- managed tree cover.

> FWIW, I tend to trace buildings first and landuse later (though sometimes I 
> lose patience). 

Should we be doing it the other way around? Map the larger object first 
(village built-up area, housing estate), then add the details (individual 
houses, etc.)?

> Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:35:49 +0200
> From: Rory McCann 
>
> Conversely, I've seen rough landuse=residental drawn over a few houses
> which are strung out in rural ireland. Most of the area inside the
> area is fields, not residential. 

I would use landuse=residential for the house and their gardens, but not 
fields. :) Note that there is agricultural land only 3km from O'Connell Bridge.

> That's not accurate. Map the
> individual houses, but you don't need a residential landuse for a few
> houses in rural areas.
>
> And not everywhere in OSM needs to be in a "landuse" tag.

I disagree. When OSM is 'finished', everywhere should have a landuse, even if 
it is landuse=desert or landuse=glacier. :) However, I think Mapnik (standard 
OSM layer) shows too much, especially when it comes to landcover - it makes it 
difficult to split the exceptional from the non-exceptional. Maybe that is a 
human-orientated view, but, hey, we're humans! :)

> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:13:49 +0200
> From: Marc Gemis 
> 
> Isn't every land in use ? How can we calculate the total amount of
> square meters of land used for living if you do not draw a
> landuse=residential around each small group of houses ?

I concur.

> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 12:43:09 +0100
> From: Dave Corley 
> 
> I've mapped landuse=residential out in the country side though not to a
> huge extent but as far as I can tell there's no reason not to (open to
> correction). What I mean is, if it's a residential property and would get
> mapped as such in the city, the fact it's in the countryside should make no
> difference, the same tagging applies.

I concur.

---
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the 
world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead

  
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Landuse

[Dave Corley]

I've mapped landuse=residential out in the country side though not to a
huge extent but as far as I can tell there's no reason not to (open to
correction). What I mean is, if it's a residential property and would get
mapped as such in the city, the fact it's in the countryside should make no
difference, the same tagging applies.

I take the point about including farmland in that. That should be mapped
separately and tagged appropriately along with farmyard and farm  buildings
mapping.

Dave
On 8 Apr 2016 08:15, "Marc Gemis"  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Rory McCann  wrote:
> > Conversely, I've seen rough landuse=residental drawn over a few houses
> > which are strung out in rural ireland. Most of the area inside the
> > area is fields, not residential. That's not accurate. Map the
> > individual houses, but you don't need a residential landuse for a few
> > houses in rural areas.
> >
> > And not everywhere in OSM needs to be in a "landuse" tag.
>
> Please explain, I am setting my first baby steps in landuse mapping
> and want to know what I should do ?  I have heard other opinions as
> well, but I'm interested why we should not cover the globe with
> landuse/landcover/natural tags.
> Isn't every land in use ? How can we calculate the total amount of
> square meters of land used for living if you do not draw a
> landuse=residential around each small group of houses ?
>
> regards
>
> m
>
> p.s. In Belgium we usually do not have housing estates with a name. So
> we need different criteria anyhow on when we draw a
> landuse=residential area.
>
> ___
> Talk-ie mailing list
> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
>
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Landuse

[Rory McCann]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi Colm,

Totally agree.

Often there are several housing estates together that have the same
name ("Blah Close", "Blah Wood", etc), and that's a good example of
needing a "Blah" landuse=residential area.

Conversely, I've seen rough landuse=residental drawn over a few houses
which are strung out in rural ireland. Most of the area inside the
area is fields, not residential. That's not accurate. Map the
individual houses, but you don't need a residential landuse for a few
houses in rural areas.

And not everywhere in OSM needs to be in a "landuse" tag.

Rory

On 05/04/16 22:45, Colm Moore wrote:
> Hi, Caution! Moan ahead! :)
> 
> There has been talk of adopting a project like mapping all schools.
> I do think it is worthy. Could I suggest an alternative in landuse,
> in particular landuse=residential? We map lots of roads, forests
> and farmland, but not so mush residential usage. As it stands,
> there are large gaps in most of the cities, in particular city
> centres, although very little of Cork (residential) has been done
> at all. I accept that in city centres / other older areas it can be
> difficult to separate terraced houses from terraced mixed-use
> areas, without local knowledge. Separately, I think some users
> might be being too coarse in the application of landuse=residential
> and enclosing an entire village in one area or a middling-to-large
> sized town in two. I think it would be more useful to implement on
> a neighbourhood (in older areas) or housing estate level (in newer
> areas). I think it would make maintenance easier, especially if an
> housing estate has a name as a whole, that isn't necessarily
> reflected in the street or townland names, e,g, in Whitehall in
> Dublin, the combination of Walnut Rise, Walnut Lawn, Walnut Avenue,
> Walnut Park, Walnut Court are, for some reason, known as Courtlands
> (Estate). https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/132713513 For example,
> in Malahide, there are about 25 streets with the name Seabury 
> (and a few called Lissadell ) and the area is known as Seabury.
> The origin of the name is the adjacent, but separate, townland of
> Seatown. The neighbouring areas of Yellow Walls and Swords Road are
> enclosed in the same landuse=residential area, although at points
> there are areas within areas, which I think can only make
> maintenance difficult. In a town of 14,000, two landuse=residential
> areas cover 90-95% of the population, while immediately next to it
> there are several areas used to cover 3-5 house each. Any
> thoughts? Thank you
> 
> Colm
> 
> --
- -
>
> 
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret
Mead
> ___ Talk-ie mailing
> list Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
> 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXBhvlAAoJEOrWdmeZivv2xaMH/1HLFB/we3ljNPUzow75mU4M
FOa0IldXGz33qeHDyhL3XpHT2aDVxjtvToEJcNWDXb48WN3VhrZUjtRTe6azYmZ4
eHg2+17pY0LLwNQT8bpACN74CbEAoQMyJ2bxlggrfJsUSpsjoSH5wc1Xhhnju5bC
Ld4vuteV303iUwYRkmhnaIUWgdC5znAc+m2kbu6gwJia9+u67Qnil8i2tdm0PS+4
h94TcOHRCwafw3PNfwAK5gukZiGKJu5CN1E9L1jOPk2ySYDflOf+E+Kjs6QlwyRe
NOVNiZxw9uoCfWmNSAFYvmvZc+m//P1tEDwapWJ+qM1jfJSaWvpVR+fcV8Onik8=
=guRl
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Landuse

[moltonel 3x Combo]

Landuse is a bit tricky in OSM because it has a large part of
subjectivity. The residential/retail/commercial/industrial split is a
common issue. How wide does a street need to be before we stop
including it in the landuse ? How all-encompassing should
landuse=farmland be ? Should we have lots of single-house
landuse=residential in the countryside ? What's up with landuse=forest
vs natural=wood ? Should I start using a multipolygon or stay with
shared-nodes closed-ways for now ? These existential questions explain
why landuse in OSM is just ok-ish.

FWIW, I tend to trace buildings first and landuse later (though
sometimes I lose patience). Having a landuse=residential polygon
double as a place=locality/neighbourhood is great when you can. I
stoped worrying about spliting residential/retail exactly right. For
better or worse, the townlands project is making Ireland
multipolygon-heavy, so I hesitate less than I used to about using MPs.
Most of our landuse=farmland has apparently been mapped by
single-contribution landowners and is often of poor quality, but so
far I only bother improving it when it interferes with the rest. I
adopted the POV that landuse=forest means forestry activity and
implies natural=wood when nothing else is tagged.

___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] Landuse

[Dave Corley]

Hi  Colm,

I've seen what you are referring to.

All I can say is what I normally do and that is to leave an area alone
until I've had a chance to survey it.

Once I gather the street and housing estate and apartment block names, I'll
refine the landuse=res by enclosing each in their own boundary where the
boundaries are obvious and applying the name to it.

I've done this for most of Galway City and several of the larger towns in
Galway over the last few years.

When I'm out collecting that level of data I'll typically gather address
data at the same time too. If I'm at a place and surveying, the chances of
me coming back to gather address data separately are pretty slim so I try
get that while I'm there.

As for enclosing large areas I agree. The caveat to what I said above is
that it is dependent on the area being primarily a residential area. An
example would be blocks where the ground level is retail but the remaining
floors are apartments. The building is mixed use and primarily residential
however it is located in a retail area, then I map the area as retail.

This would be a great topic to discuss in more detail at the meet up on the
23rd

Dave
On 5 Apr 2016 21:46, "Colm Moore"  wrote:

> Hi,
> Caution! Moan ahead! :)
>
> There has been talk of adopting a project like mapping all schools. I do
> think it is worthy.
> Could I suggest an alternative in landuse, in particular
> landuse=residential? We map lots of roads, forests and farmland, but not so
> mush residential usage.
> As it stands, there are large gaps in most of the cities, in particular
> city centres, although very little of Cork (residential) has been done at
> all. I accept that in city centres / other older areas it can be difficult
> to separate terraced houses from terraced mixed-use areas, without local
> knowledge.
> Separately, I think some users might be being too coarse in the
> application of landuse=residential and enclosing an entire village in one
> area or a middling-to-large sized town in two. I think it would be more
> useful to implement on a neighbourhood (in older areas) or housing estate
> level (in newer areas). I think it would make maintenance easier,
> especially if an housing estate has a name as a whole, that isn't
> necessarily reflected in the street or townland names, e,g, in Whitehall in
> Dublin, the combination of Walnut Rise, Walnut Lawn, Walnut Avenue, Walnut
> Park, Walnut Court are, for some reason, known as Courtlands (Estate).
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/132713513
> For example, in Malahide, there are about 25 streets with the name Seabury
>  (and a few called Lissadell ) and the area is known as Seabury.
> The origin of the name is the adjacent, but separate, townland of Seatown.
> The neighbouring areas of Yellow Walls and Swords Road are enclosed in the
> same landuse=residential area, although at points there are areas within
> areas, which I think can only make maintenance difficult. In a town of
> 14,000, two landuse=residential areas cover 90-95% of the population, while
> immediately next to it there are several areas used to cover 3-5 house each.
> Any thoughts?
> Thank you
>
> Colm
>
>
> ---
> Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
> change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead
> ___
> Talk-ie mailing list
> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
>
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie

[OSM-talk-ie] Landuse

[Colm Moore]

Hi,
Caution! Moan ahead! :)

There has been talk of adopting a project like mapping all schools. I do think 
it is worthy.
Could I suggest an alternative in landuse, in particular landuse=residential? 
We map lots of roads, forests and farmland, but not so mush residential usage.
As it stands, there are large gaps in most of the cities, in particular city 
centres, although very little of Cork (residential) has been done at all. I 
accept that in city centres / other older areas it can be difficult to separate 
terraced houses from terraced mixed-use areas, without local knowledge.
Separately, I think some users might be being too coarse in the application of 
landuse=residential and enclosing an entire village in one area or a 
middling-to-large sized town in two. I think it would be more useful to 
implement on a neighbourhood (in older areas) or housing estate level (in newer 
areas). I think it would make maintenance easier, especially if an housing 
estate has a name as a whole, that isn't necessarily reflected in the street or 
townland names, e,g, in Whitehall in Dublin, the combination of Walnut Rise, 
Walnut Lawn, Walnut Avenue, Walnut Park, Walnut Court are, for some reason, 
known as Courtlands (Estate). https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/132713513
For example, in Malahide, there are about 25 streets with the name Seabury  
(and a few called Lissadell ) and the area is known as Seabury. The origin 
of the name is the adjacent, but separate, townland of Seatown. The 
neighbouring areas of Yellow Walls and Swords Road are enclosed in the same 
landuse=residential area, although at points there are areas within areas, 
which I think can only make maintenance difficult. In a town of 14,000, two 
landuse=residential areas cover 90-95% of the population, while immediately 
next to it there are several areas used to cover 3-5 house each.
Any thoughts?
Thank you

Colm

---
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the 
world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead
  
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie