Re: [OSM-talk-be] landuse & highways

2019-03-19 Thread marc marc 
landuse=highway also exist (small diff with area:highway : it include 
all the highway land, including verges and not only the usable part)

Le 19.03.19 à 21:07, Lionel Giard a écrit :
> For what i understand, the landuse=grass is mostly a "landcover=grass" 
> tag which was never properly named (and thus it is used like that). The 
> surface=grass alone doesn't mean much in OSM as the surface tag is (i 
> think) only a secondary tag (adding information to other object like 
> highway=* ).
> 
> For the original question, it seems indeed to be less accepted to 
> connect the landuse to the highway! And i find that it is so much easier 
> to edit when it is not connected to the highway (or to the landuse on 
> the other side) as it can just be directly moved without splitting 
> first. If you want to map the area of an highway there is the proposal 
> of tag "area:highway=*" that can be used but is not rendered at the 
> moment (see here : 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Street_area). But 
> it could in the future if the usage become more prevalent.
> 
> Le mar. 19 mars 2019 à 19:55, Karel Adams  > a écrit :
> 
> For what it is worth (and I do not think much of that, myself!): the
> landuse tag is one of the most confusing and most misused.
> 
> In my self-assigned job of mapping aerodromes, and improving on
> them, I often see tags like
> 
> landuse=grass
> 
> and that seems incorrect to me, it ought to be surface=grass rather
> 
> Correct usage of landuse includes (in my very personal
> appreciation!) landuse=industrial, landuse=military,
> landuse=commercial, landuse=recreational and more such. What that
> means to the mapping of highways is beyond my comprehension; and, to
> be frank, beyond my interest. I only wanted to give my opinion on
> the general usage of the landuse= tag. Perhaps the best application
> of the landuse tag to highways - but also to railways, canals,
> aerodromes, , would be landuse=infrastructure or
> landuse=public_infrastructure
> 
> NB wasn't there a dedicated mailing list about tagging?
> 
> For what it is worth,
> 
> 
> On 19/03/2019 18:33, Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> What are the opinions these days about landuse mapping: connect
>> landuses to highways or let space between landuse polygons and
>> adjacent highways? Is there a consensus or can everyone do
>> whatever he/she likes?
>> My opinion: I *hate* landuse connected to highways.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> StijnRR
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-be mailing list
>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org  
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> 

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] landuse & highways

2019-03-19 Thread Karel Adams 

Lionel, merci!

"landcover=" est du nouveau pour moi, faut que je regarde dedans!

Bien chaleureusement,


On 19/03/2019 20:07, Lionel Giard wrote:
For what i understand, the landuse=grass is mostly a "landcover=grass" 
tag which was never properly named (and thus it is used like that). 
The surface=grass alone doesn't mean much in OSM as the surface tag is 
(i think) only a secondary tag (adding information to other object 
like highway=* ).


For the original question, it seems indeed to be less accepted to 
connect the landuse to the highway! And i find that it is so much 
easier to edit when it is not connected to the highway (or to the 
landuse on the other side) as it can just be directly moved without 
splitting first. If you want to map the area of an highway there is 
the proposal of tag "area:highway=*" that can be used but is not 
rendered at the moment (see here : 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Street_area). 
But it could in the future if the usage become more prevalent.


Le mar. 19 mars 2019 à 19:55, Karel Adams > a écrit :


For what it is worth (and I do not think much of that, myself!):
the landuse tag is one of the most confusing and most misused.

In my self-assigned job of mapping aerodromes, and improving on
them, I often see tags like

landuse=grass

and that seems incorrect to me, it ought to be surface=grass rather

Correct usage of landuse includes (in my very personal
appreciation!) landuse=industrial, landuse=military,
landuse=commercial, landuse=recreational and more such. What that
means to the mapping of highways is beyond my comprehension; and,
to be frank, beyond my interest. I only wanted to give my opinion
on the general usage of the landuse= tag. Perhaps the best
application of the landuse tag to highways - but also to railways,
canals, aerodromes, , would be landuse=infrastructure or
landuse=public_infrastructure

NB wasn't there a dedicated mailing list about tagging?

For what it is worth,


On 19/03/2019 18:33, Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be wrote:

Hi,

What are the opinions these days about landuse mapping: connect
landuses to highways or let space between landuse polygons and
adjacent highways? Is there a consensus or can everyone do
whatever he/she likes?
My opinion: I *hate* landuse connected to highways.

Regards,

StijnRR

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

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


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] landuse & highways

2019-03-19 Thread Lionel Giard 
For what i understand, the landuse=grass is mostly a "landcover=grass" tag
which was never properly named (and thus it is used like that). The
surface=grass alone doesn't mean much in OSM as the surface tag is (i
think) only a secondary tag (adding information to other object like
highway=* ).

For the original question, it seems indeed to be less accepted to connect
the landuse to the highway! And i find that it is so much easier to edit
when it is not connected to the highway (or to the landuse on the other
side) as it can just be directly moved without splitting first. If you want
to map the area of an highway there is the proposal of tag "area:highway=*"
that can be used but is not rendered at the moment (see here :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Street_area). But it
could in the future if the usage become more prevalent.

Le mar. 19 mars 2019 à 19:55, Karel Adams  a écrit :

> For what it is worth (and I do not think much of that, myself!): the
> landuse tag is one of the most confusing and most misused.
>
> In my self-assigned job of mapping aerodromes, and improving on them, I
> often see tags like
>
> landuse=grass
>
> and that seems incorrect to me, it ought to be surface=grass rather
>
> Correct usage of landuse includes (in my very personal appreciation!)
> landuse=industrial, landuse=military, landuse=commercial,
> landuse=recreational and more such. What that means to the mapping of
> highways is beyond my comprehension; and, to be frank, beyond my interest.
> I only wanted to give my opinion on the general usage of the landuse= tag.
> Perhaps the best application of the landuse tag to highways - but also to
> railways, canals, aerodromes, , would be landuse=infrastructure or
> landuse=public_infrastructure
>
> NB wasn't there a dedicated mailing list about tagging?
>
> For what it is worth,
>
>
> On 19/03/2019 18:33, Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> What are the opinions these days about landuse mapping: connect landuses
> to highways or let space between landuse polygons and adjacent highways?
> Is there a consensus or can everyone do whatever he/she likes?
> My opinion: I *hate* landuse connected to highways.
>
> Regards,
>
> StijnRR
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing 
> listTalk-be@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

Re: [OSM-talk-be] landuse & highways

2019-03-19 Thread Karel Adams 
For what it is worth (and I do not think much of that, myself!): the 
landuse tag is one of the most confusing and most misused.


In my self-assigned job of mapping aerodromes, and improving on them, I 
often see tags like


landuse=grass

and that seems incorrect to me, it ought to be surface=grass rather

Correct usage of landuse includes (in my very personal appreciation!) 
landuse=industrial, landuse=military, landuse=commercial, 
landuse=recreational and more such. What that means to the mapping of 
highways is beyond my comprehension; and, to be frank, beyond my 
interest. I only wanted to give my opinion on the general usage of the 
landuse= tag. Perhaps the best application of the landuse tag to 
highways - but also to railways, canals, aerodromes, , would be 
landuse=infrastructure or landuse=public_infrastructure


NB wasn't there a dedicated mailing list about tagging?

For what it is worth,


On 19/03/2019 18:33, Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be wrote:

Hi,

What are the opinions these days about landuse mapping: connect 
landuses to highways or let space between landuse polygons and 
adjacent highways? Is there a consensus or can everyone do whatever 
he/she likes?

My opinion: I *hate* landuse connected to highways.

Regards,

StijnRR

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] landuse & highways

2019-03-19 Thread Jakka 
I also hate the connection of landuse to highway. A landuse border do 
not stop in the middle of a highway but at its border of the highway...
extreme example a moterway with 2x4 lanes one side landuse foret other 
side farmland none reached at the middle of the motorway.
De connecting or cutting those highway to at max_xyz brings a lot of 
mistakes and strange shapes and  g


Op 19/03/2019 om 19:33 schreef Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be:

Hi,

What are the opinions these days about landuse mapping: connect landuses
to highways or let space between landuse polygons and adjacent highways?
Is there a consensus or can everyone do whatever he/she likes?
My opinion: I *hate* landuse connected to highways.

Regards,

StijnRR


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





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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] landuse & highways

2019-03-19 Thread Jo 
I'm under the impression (from reading international mailing lists) most
dislike it when landuse gets glued to the highways nowadays.

Polyglot

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:34 PM Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be <
talk-be@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> What are the opinions these days about landuse mapping: connect landuses
> to highways or let space between landuse polygons and adjacent highways?
> Is there a consensus or can everyone do whatever he/she likes?
> My opinion: I *hate* landuse connected to highways.
>
> Regards,
>
> StijnRR
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
___
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be