On 27/09/2010 10:19, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Lennard<[email protected]> wrote:
On 27-9-2010 10:16, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Landuse should be covered by land cover (and buildings) where said
cover exists. For example a landuse=retail area may be over half
amenity=parking areas.
And yet we call forests/heath/grass/etc land *use* instead of land *cover*.
It feels like we're rehashing old discussions.
What do you know, we are:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2009-October/000106.html
It's not really the same discussion. Clearly a lake can be part of a
residential area (think of a bunch of lots on the lake with a private
dock extending from each one)
, but a lake will not be part of a meadow
or forest.
I don't see why you consider one to be a part but not the other.
To me neither are; a lake is a separate entity no matter where it's located.
But what I'm mostly concerned with is having a limited number of
"top-level" landuse values. For example a large residential
neighborhood can be tagged landuse=residential, but there's no similar
value for an area full of government buildings or a tourist strip.
What's a tourist strip?
(But back to the linked discussion: I use nested landuse polygons all
the time; a named residential neighborhood can have a small retail
area within it that's considered to be part of the neighborhood.
Personally I don't name the area because
a) The defining boundary is always a bit vague
b) Depending on the shape of the boundary the label doesn't always
display within it.
I use POI place names instead.
This
is about the largest polygons which may or may not have smaller ones
within them.)
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
