Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
On 17/01/2012 15:41, Jo wrote: For what it's worth. When I start rendering/printing maps based on OSM, I think it's extremely ugly if the landuse is not 'connected' to the roads, i.e. that the landuse uses separate parallel ways with a small space in between for its definition. That would be factually incorrect. Also remember that the way for the road represents an infinitesimally narrow centre line. Any width the road might have is dictated by the rendering. Example of why not to join landuse to ways: Imagine you joined a landuse=field to a road. This field has a hedge boundary with a gate in it for a footpath to pass through. In this scenario the gate tag would also be on the road indicating there's a barrier to the traffic. Clearly wrong. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
2012/1/22 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com On 17/01/2012 15:41, Jo wrote: For what it's worth. When I start rendering/printing maps based on OSM, I think it's extremely ugly if the landuse is not 'connected' to the roads, i.e. that the landuse uses separate parallel ways with a small space in between for its definition. That would be factually incorrect. Also remember that the way for the road represents an infinitesimally narrow centre line. Any width the road might have is dictated by the rendering. Example of why not to join landuse to ways: Imagine you joined a landuse=field to a road. This field has a hedge boundary with a gate in it for a footpath to pass through. In this scenario the gate tag would also be on the road indicating there's a barrier to the traffic. Clearly wrong. Since it's obvious that either I understood how to use landuse tagging, or there is no consensus on how it has to be used, I'll continue by mostly ignoring it, as I did before. It's a lot of work to join landuses together and make them contiguous to the roads where appropriate, so I'll let it be. I might even start filtering it out with JOSM, as the noise it clearly is. For me landuse was a way of indicating the general use of the land. If people want to start exaggerating even further than I do myself then I'll let it be. This is an area where I mostly started from zero and which I've been mapping extensively: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.9162lon=4.9975zoom=14layers=M I mapped it the summer before bing imagery became available and postprocessed a bit further about one year ago. I hope I can get back there this summer and go on with it. I'm not planning to start mapping the landuse in the ridiculous way I've seen around that turning circle though. It's time consuming enough as it is to map larger areas. OTOH, even though I think it's rididiculous, I won't remove it, if I find such landuses, although my fingers would itch to use Ctrl-J on them... As for automatically postprocessing those, in order to use them to create maps, I don't see how I would go about programming that. Which means that in my private copy I'd probably have to remove all of them and then apply more general landuses before being able to print maps. This is fine if I only need a map once of an area, but not feasible if I need them regularly. Polyglot ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
On 17/01/2012 12:45, Nathan Edgars II wrote: . Residential roads are obviously part of a residential landuse. People don't general live in the middle of the road (unless you're one of Monty Python's Four Yorkshiremen, of course). Highways are maintained by local/national authorities not the local inhabitants. This is just ridiculous: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=35.323225lon=-119.077089zoom=18 That looks fantastic. So much more accurate than the average area, If it's physical - map it. Neither is a lawn or swimming pool. Yes they are, because they're owned/maintained by them. It takes significantly longer to download an area. I disagree that it's significant, but anyway, so what? It's more accurate. traveling to and from a house, parking cars, playing ball... I also use motorways, car parks recreation grounds for those. Should I be marking them as residential? But the landuse tag is for the primary use of land by humans From the wiki: An area of land dedicated to, or having predominantly residential houses or apartment buildings. Which is a much better synopsis. It's a matter of time patience. If you've got both, map it as the example above, if not, do it as one big area. The latter is OK, but the former is more accurate, I'm all for making OSM that. Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
On 1/17/2012 6:28 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2012/1/17 Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl: On 2012-01-16 23:27, Robin Paulson wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=-36.878407lon=174.741523zoom=19 the landuse polygon has an orange highlight on it, why does it do that? Just a hint on mapping (not to Robin in particular): I think it is unnecessary to cut up landuse=residential areas just because there is a road there. The road itself is as much part of the residential area as the ground the houses stand on. IMHO there is no reason not to make the landuse=residential be contiguous across multiple roads. I disagree. Public roads generally are a different landuse (i.e. they are roads). Smaller landuse entities also are much easier to refine later. And yet another point: landuse mapped like in this example conveys more information because it indicates the border of the private properties. I'd probably split the polygons only at Sandringham (which I'd make tertiary), unless each block has its own name. Residential roads are obviously part of a residential landuse. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
2012/1/17 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: On 1/17/2012 6:28 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2012/1/17 Maarten Deenmd...@xs4all.nl: On 2012-01-16 23:27, Robin Paulson wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=-36.878407lon=174.741523zoom=19 the landuse polygon has an orange highlight on it, why does it do that? Just a hint on mapping (not to Robin in particular): I think it is unnecessary to cut up landuse=residential areas just because there is a road there. The road itself is as much part of the residential area as the ground the houses stand on. IMHO there is no reason not to make the landuse=residential be contiguous across multiple roads. I disagree. Public roads generally are a different landuse (i.e. they are roads). Smaller landuse entities also are much easier to refine later. And yet another point: landuse mapped like in this example conveys more information because it indicates the border of the private properties. I'd probably split the polygons only at Sandringham (which I'd make tertiary), unless each block has its own name. Residential roads are obviously part of a residential landuse. I find it useless to map such wide areas as landuses. There's no point in tagging a whole village's area as landuse=residential, and there's no point in making a sixty-km-wide polygon to indicate that between Parma and Reggio Emilia there's cultivated land. As to residential roads, I don't think they are part of the landuse. I agree that services (especially driveways) and living_streets are, but a residential road is not a place to live, nor it is meant to be used only by the residents. Regards, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
On 1/17/2012 8:10 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote: I find it useless to map such wide areas as landuses. There's no point in tagging a whole village's area as landuse=residential, and there's no point in making a sixty-km-wide polygon to indicate that between Parma and Reggio Emilia there's cultivated land. I'm not suggesting either of these. But a single chunk of houses is clearly all residential, whether it's the size of a few lots or a huge subdivision. Splitting it at roads gives no benefit and complicates editing greatly. This is just ridiculous: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=35.323225lon=-119.077089zoom=18 As to residential roads, I don't think they are part of the landuse. I agree that services (especially driveways) and living_streets are, but a residential road is not a place to live, Neither is a lawn or swimming pool. nor it is meant to be used only by the residents. So your cutoff would be whether through traffic is allowed? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com wrote: I find it useless to map such wide areas as landuses. There's no point in tagging a whole village's area as landuse=residential, and there's no point in making a sixty-km-wide polygon to indicate that between Parma and Reggio Emilia there's cultivated land. -1 Obviously landuse polygons have been created for wide areas at the beginning. Ideally all land square meters should be covered by one landuse polygon. Having one landuse=residential polygon for a village is very common in OSM. As to residential roads, I don't think they are part of the landuse. I agree that services (especially driveways) and living_streets are, but a residential road is not a place to live, nor it is meant to be used only by the residents. -1 If we push your logic, only residential building footprints can be tagged as landuse=residential (because the garden or the car park is also not the place where you live). Of course, you can increase the granularity of the landuse polygons if you wish but don't discourage contributors to map wide landuse if they want. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
2012/1/17 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: On 1/17/2012 8:10 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote: I'm not suggesting either of these. But a single chunk of houses is clearly all residential, whether it's the size of a few lots or a huge subdivision. +1. public streets are not part of it. Have a look how others deal with this at a scale of 1:2000 (zoom 18). Splitting it at roads gives no benefit and complicates editing greatly. This is just ridiculous: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=35.323225lon=-119.077089zoom=18 how does that complicate anything? Connecting roads to landuses and other areas complicates editing greatly. A mapping like the above eases editing and is more precise then a huge landuse-polygon. I don't find anything ridiculous in this. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
2012/1/17 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: On 1/17/2012 8:10 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote: I find it useless to map such wide areas as landuses. There's no point in tagging a whole village's area as landuse=residential, and there's no point in making a sixty-km-wide polygon to indicate that between Parma and Reggio Emilia there's cultivated land. I'm not suggesting either of these. But a single chunk of houses is clearly all residential, whether it's the size of a few lots or a huge subdivision. Splitting it at roads gives no benefit and complicates editing greatly. This is just ridiculous: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=35.323225lon=-119.077089zoom=18 At all; this is how I would tag it. This is how I tag it, actually: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.301967lon=8.444596zoom=18layers=M As to residential roads, I don't think they are part of the landuse. I agree that services (especially driveways) and living_streets are, but a residential road is not a place to live, Neither is a lawn or swimming pool. I disagree. If the lawn and the swimming pool are part of a residence (not at a public park, for example, or not at a sport facility), then what do you do there? You relax, you spend time there, you live there. On the other hand, you don't live in the middle of the road. nor it is meant to be used only by the residents. So your cutoff would be whether through traffic is allowed? I have never thought of a rigorous definition; it seems quite evident to me. Whether through traffic is allowed is something I would describe with access tags. For example, there's a footway that connects the two sections of the complex I live in. This footway would be access=permissive: it's privately owned and it is supposed to be non-accessible to the general public, but there are two gates on it and they're open by day, so a few people actually use it to go from a street to the other. Through traffic (if pedestrian) is allowed, but I would not take the footway out of the residential landuse. The bottom line is: if you would live there, it's landuse=residential. If it's a road, I think we can agree that you wouldn't want to live there. Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
Regarding Landuse=residential I do not agree with the approach of the two examples http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=35.323225lon=-119.077089zoom=18 http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=45.301967lon=8.444596zoom=18 Apart from the aspect of overcrowding any map produced from this data, it is simply not helpful from a practical point of view. What additional information do I gain from excluding the road from the landuse area, it is anyway clear that people do not live on roads. I would strongly advocate for including the residential roads in the residential landuse areas. In both examples even cul-de-sac roads are excluded ! I would only exclude major roads from the residential landuse areas. Let me use other landuse examples: military. There it is more obvious that the roads in the military area are used for military purposes. In the same sense residential roads are used for residential purposes. Or look at the industrial landuse - would you exclude the service roads and any similar roads not dedicated to through-traffic? Volker On 17 January 2012 14:43, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/1/17 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: On 1/17/2012 8:10 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote: I find it useless to map such wide areas as landuses. There's no point in tagging a whole village's area as landuse=residential, and there's no point in making a sixty-km-wide polygon to indicate that between Parma and Reggio Emilia there's cultivated land. I'm not suggesting either of these. But a single chunk of houses is clearly all residential, whether it's the size of a few lots or a huge subdivision. Splitting it at roads gives no benefit and complicates editing greatly. This is just ridiculous: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=35.323225lon=-119.077089zoom=18 At all; this is how I would tag it. This is how I tag it, actually: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.301967lon=8.444596zoom=18layers=M As to residential roads, I don't think they are part of the landuse. I agree that services (especially driveways) and living_streets are, but a residential road is not a place to live, Neither is a lawn or swimming pool. I disagree. If the lawn and the swimming pool are part of a residence (not at a public park, for example, or not at a sport facility), then what do you do there? You relax, you spend time there, you live there. On the other hand, you don't live in the middle of the road. nor it is meant to be used only by the residents. So your cutoff would be whether through traffic is allowed? I have never thought of a rigorous definition; it seems quite evident to me. Whether through traffic is allowed is something I would describe with access tags. For example, there's a footway that connects the two sections of the complex I live in. This footway would be access=permissive: it's privately owned and it is supposed to be non-accessible to the general public, but there are two gates on it and they're open by day, so a few people actually use it to go from a street to the other. Through traffic (if pedestrian) is allowed, but I would not take the footway out of the residential landuse. The bottom line is: if you would live there, it's landuse=residential. If it's a road, I think we can agree that you wouldn't want to live there. Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Volker SCHMIDT Via Vecchia 18/ter 35127 Padova Italy mailto:vosc...@gmail.com office phone: +39-049-829-5977 office fax +39-049-8700718 home phone: +39-049-851519 personal mobile: +39-340-1427105 skype: volker.schmidt ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote: Regarding Landuse=residential I do not agree with the approach of the two examples http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=35.323225lon=-119.077089zoom=18 http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=45.301967lon=8.444596zoom=18 Apart from the aspect of overcrowding any map produced from this data, it is simply not helpful from a practical point of view. What additional information do I gain from excluding the road from the landuse area, it is anyway clear that people do not live on roads. I would strongly advocate for including the residential roads in the residential landuse areas. In both examples even cul-de-sac roads are excluded ! I would only exclude major roads from the residential landuse areas. I agree. I think that residential area, industrial area etc include their roads, which are used for residential / industrial access respectively. It would make sense to exclude through-roads, though. I see the area kind of landuse marker as being mostly of interested when zoomed out, away from the detail, although of course their boundaries should still be precise. When zoomed in to more detail, individual houses / factories will be the focus of interest. __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
2012/1/17 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: Apart from the aspect of overcrowding any map produced from this data, what do you mean? In lower zoom levels it looks exactly the same: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.32655lon=-119.07474zoom=15layers=M and in closeups you get the detail that otherwise would simply be missing: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.325327lon=-119.068748zoom=18layers=M it is simply not helpful from a practical point of view. What additional information do I gain from excluding the road from the landuse area, it is anyway clear that people do not live on roads. you get the border between public and private land. Why is that not helpful or interesting? Let me use other landuse examples: military. There it is more obvious that the roads in the military area are used for military purposes. If the roads are part of the area I agree. This is the difference. A residential road is not part of the lots along it, a military landuse on the other hand has the roads as part of the area. A public road dividing a military area would not be included in the landuse=military, even if it is used by the military. Or look at the industrial landuse - would you exclude the service roads and any similar roads not dedicated to through-traffic? I would include roads inside an industrial complex (inside private property) in the landuse, and would exclude the public roads. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/1/17 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: it is simply not helpful from a practical point of view. What additional information do I gain from excluding the road from the landuse area, it is anyway clear that people do not live on roads. you get the border between public and private land. Why is that not helpful or interesting? You get the border between public and private land _wrong_. In my experience, the property line is not at the curb, but some distance back from the curb. A reserved area is held for utilities, road expansion, snowplow debris, etc. I am not a fan of individual landuse areas for each block, or even worse individual landuse areas from each property / building. There is not necessarily a direct connection between landuse and zoning. Is a home-based daycare residential or commercial, or commercial / residential. (Or residential commercial=permissive) What about a home-based medical practice or barber shop? Locally, zoning is only directly observable when an application for a zoning change requires a posted sign. Even then, While the land owner has applied for permission to build an 8-storey residential building atop a two-story commercial shopping area (and underground parking), that isn't the current landuse. It's currently a disused gas station. The correct landuse or zoning is unknowable from a casual OSM foot survey or aerial imagery. Instead, map what is knowable and observable. building=shop, shop=convenience or building=house or amenity=doctors, etc. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
you get the border between public and private land. Why is that not helpful or interesting? I think this is the basic point of my objection: I believe that OSM maps what is out there, not what is legally defined in some document to which we normally have no access. I am interested surely in whether can use a road or not - that's what I expect from a good map. But that needs to be based on visible evidence on the ground. Anyway this has nothing to do with landuse=residential. BTW I also have looked up and commented on the new idea of adding landuse=highway for roads, based on the legal status of the land, which in my view is going in the same direction of your argument. This is out of scope of OSM and also completely impractical. Volker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: In my experience, the property line is not at the curb, but some distance back from the curb. A reserved area is held for utilities, road expansion, snowplow debris, etc. Depends a lot on the jurisdiction (in some jurisdictions the property line is in the center of the road), but I'd rarely recommend marking the landuse line at the curb. The landuse line should go up to the right of way, which is generally not at the curb. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
For what it's worth. When I start rendering/printing maps based on OSM, I think it's extremely ugly if the landuse is not 'connected' to the roads, i.e. that the landuse uses separate parallel ways with a small space in between for its definition. I also prefer to create landuses as big as practically feasible, so obviously I tend to include the streets in them. Bordering on other landuses like railway and usually not including dual carriage highways. But if it doesn't include the highway, then I most certainly reuse its nodes in order to get a contiguous shape with no white between the landuse and the road. So you'll often observe me joining adjacent landuses for places I want to render or places I get serious about retracing from Bing or cleaning up non ODBL compliant data. Polyglot ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
2012/1/17 Jo winfi...@gmail.com: For what it's worth. When I start rendering/printing maps based on OSM, I think it's extremely ugly if the landuse is not 'connected' to the roads, i.e. that the landuse uses separate parallel ways with a small space in between for its definition. I also prefer to create landuses as big as practically feasible, so obviously I tend to include the streets in them. Bordering on other landuses like railway and usually not including dual carriage highways. But if it doesn't include the highway, then I most certainly reuse its nodes in order to get a contiguous shape with no white between the landuse and the road. Allow me to cringe a little on the inside :-) Basically your use of the feature is saying that the left side of the road is, for example, residential, and the right side is industrial. Are we kidding? Don't take offense, it's nothing personal here, just that I can't understand the logic behind such decisions. Best regards, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
2012/1/17 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com: you get the border between public and private land. Why is that not helpful or interesting? You get the border between public and private land _wrong_. In my experience, the property line is not at the curb, but some distance back from the curb. A reserved area is held for utilities, road expansion, snowplow debris, etc. I totally agree (besides to the wrong, because I never said I'd make the curb the border, usually I'd use the fence (if any, mostly there are in here) for this. Anyway: it is clearly an approximation, and we can always improve this in the future. There is not necessarily a direct connection between landuse and zoning. yes, landuse is about the actual landuse, zoning is about the legally permitted landuse. Is a home-based daycare residential or commercial, or commercial / residential. (Or residential commercial=permissive) guess home-based is quite clear. What about a home-based medical practice or barber shop? I find it perfectly acceptable to have local shops or other home-based businesses (e.g. often there is insurance agencies which are operated out of normal detached houses) inside a residential area/landuse/zone, so even a not-home-based barber-shop or convenience shop might be landuse=residential (the wiki speaks of predominantly). For further detail it might indeed be possible in the future to refine residential into different subtypes (e.g. the German law knows of 3-4 different types of residential plus some mixed ones, and while I am not suggesting to map according the German law this could be taken as a hint that more detail is not necessarily an exxageration). Locally, zoning is only directly observable when an application for a zoning change requires a posted sign. Even then, While the land owner has applied for permission to build an 8-storey residential building atop a two-story commercial shopping area (and underground parking), that isn't the current landuse. It's currently a disused gas station. +1, we are not mapping the permitted or planned landuse but the current one. The correct landuse or zoning is unknowable from a casual OSM foot survey or aerial imagery. this does not really matter IMHO. If someone wanted to map the zoning (with appropriate tags, not landuse), this would be OK. The data is publicly available (that's on the other hand an argument not to map it in OSM). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
2012/1/17 Jo winfi...@gmail.com: So you'll often observe me joining adjacent landuses for places I want to render or places I get serious about retracing from Bing or cleaning up non ODBL compliant data. I think this is where the problem starts: people removing detail from the map data which other mappers added to get a more generalized rendering to suit their own personal preferences. You should do this kind of generalization offline and locally. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: For what it's worth. When I start rendering/printing maps based on OSM, I think it's extremely ugly if the landuse is not 'connected' to the roads, i.e. that the landuse uses separate parallel ways with a small space in between for its definition. If we're going to go by our own personal and unexplained opinions, I think it's best looking when the landuse does not cover the right of way (not that this does not mean the landuse ways are parallel to the highway ways - they often are not). It's also the most functional. Rights of way are not one-dimensional lines. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
Hi, On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: For what it's worth. When I start rendering/printing maps based on OSM, I think it's extremely ugly if the landuse is not 'connected' to the roads, i.e. that the landuse uses separate parallel ways with a small space in between for its definition. What looks ugly should not define how we map stuff. That's been said so many times I'm not sure I should even mention it again. If the looks are not to your liking, apply a different style sheet or fix it in your rendering process. Sharing nodes between roads and landuse (or any) polygons makes mapping more confusing and thus harder, so I would recommend against doing that. I do a lot of 'ungluing' landuse from ways where I live for that reason - and also because many of the landuse polygons were created by a non-agreer who, in the process, tainted a lot of ways. -- martijn van exel geospatial omnivore 1109 1st ave #2 salt lake city, ut 84103 801-550-5815 http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 08:30 -0500, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 1/17/2012 8:10 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote: I find it useless to map such wide areas as landuses. There's no point in tagging a whole village's area as landuse=residential, and there's no point in making a sixty-km-wide polygon to indicate that between Parma and Reggio Emilia there's cultivated land. I'm not suggesting either of these. But a single chunk of houses is clearly all residential, whether it's the size of a few lots or a huge subdivision. Splitting it at roads gives no benefit and complicates editing greatly. This is just ridiculous: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=35.323225lon=-119.077089zoom=18 Actually, I wouldn't call that ridiculous, I'd call it accurate. Notice how landuse=residential doesn't overlap other, not-residential uses. Even leaves it open for potential landuse=highway area. Having landuse=* polygons overlapping entire regions is *much* more difficult to work with, especially when the edge extends close to or shares nodes with an adjacent highway centerline. Then trying to make an edit becomes a tangled, unwieldy mess in JOSM and just plain Not For the Uninitiated™ in Potlatch. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 15:25 +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote: Regarding Landuse=residential I do not agree with the approach of the two examples http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=35.323225lon=-119.077089zoom=18 http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=45.301967lon=8.444596zoom=18 Apart from the aspect of overcrowding any map produced from this data, it is simply not helpful from a practical point of view. What additional information do I gain from excluding the road from the landuse area, Well, in the Bakersfield example, thanks to the residential outlines and trees, I spotted a median and an alley way that hadn't been mapped without having to open an editor and WMS first. Let me use other landuse examples: military. There it is more obvious that the roads in the military area are used for military purposes. In the same sense residential roads are used for residential purposes. True, but you can have military activity in a street. Heck, a military could take Occupy Wall Street literally. Or look at the industrial landuse - would you exclude the service roads and any similar roads not dedicated to through-traffic? No, but that would be analogous to a private/permissive living street in an apartment complex. Same owner, area and ways used for other uses. Granted, there's a bit of a judgement call in play, but I'm pretty sure anybody who is intent on using landuse=* knows how nitpicky zoning is; ideally landuse=* and zoning should be as congruent as practical in regards to property lines and actual land use goes. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 10:18 -0500, Richard Weait wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/1/17 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: it is simply not helpful from a practical point of view. What additional information do I gain from excluding the road from the landuse area, it is anyway clear that people do not live on roads. you get the border between public and private land. Why is that not helpful or interesting? You get the border between public and private land _wrong_. In my experience, the property line is not at the curb, but some distance back from the curb. A reserved area is held for utilities, road expansion, snowplow debris, etc. [...] There is not necessarily a direct connection between landuse and zoning. Is a home-based daycare residential or commercial, or commercial / residential. (Or residential commercial=permissive) What about a home-based medical practice or barber shop? Depends on available sources used, and at least it's a starting point to getting the refinement necessary to get the level of accuracy you're talking about (in much the same way that TIGER got most of the US to within horseshoes and hand grenades accurate in areas that were previously, and often still are, information vaccuums in terms of places OSM's army of volunteers hasn't yet grown large enough to see firsthand. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
