On 23/05/11 14:13, Tobias Knerr wrote: > Andrew Chadwick wrote: >> landuse=residential >> residential=garden > > This implies that the landuse=residential tag would be used on > smale-scale structures, which I believe should not be done. landuses are > large-scale areas.
Hmm. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse does not back you up or mention size limits. It might be interesting to see the distribution of landuse area sizes by hectare. All you can say about an area of landuse IMO is that it describes the predominant usage of land within it, ideally >>50%. > When you create a landuse polygon for an individual > building or garden, you are doing something wrong, imo. Yes, since landuse is not about individual plots. If we go the landuse route for this, it would make sense to explain that and suggest that mappers use broad brush-strokes. Personally I think it would make sense to map broad areas of gardens plural, but I'm not enough of a detail-head to map each individual garden (...perhaps there's scope for a plot=* tag for those who are..!) > A residential garden is not a residential area. It is, however, found > *within* a residential area. Therefore, it should be mapped as an area > within another area tagged as landuse=residential, and should not itself > be tagged as landuse=residential. I've always considered residential landuse to cover the extent of all the plots within it when I have aerial imagery, gardens included, but also to -mean- {housing -or- associated private gardens -or- any access roads or paths passing into the area}. So in my book it's just a further-typed kind of residential land use. By that of course is just MHO and I see where you're coming from when you say > Look at buildings for an analogy: We don't tag residential buildings as > landuse=residential + residential=building, but as building polygons > *within* a residential area. Are proposing to recommend garden=residential (on its own), like building=residential? It's come up before in other discussions, and that could work too, it's not a bad system. The building case even has its own special rendering :) People have suggested garden=* as a tag for typifying the type a garden is. It works on its own, implies garden-ness (of some undefined higher-level meaning) and it works in conjunction with any tag with "garden" as its value. I could be convinced by this, let me know what it is you're suggesting. Whether we suggest landuse=* or a garden=* typifier (on its own), I hope there's agreement here that the vast majority of residential gardens should *not* be leisure=garden objects. >> Rendering residential gardens in the same colours >> as surrounding residential landuse that -isn't- gardens both looks >> prettier when the renderer doesn't do anything special to support >> residential gardens > > The same effect can be achieved if residential gardens are not rendered > at all, and the residential landuse that contains the gardens is > rendered as usual. Seems fine to me... I don't want them rendered differently from residential grey :) Perhaps one day when every swathe of back gardens is mapped as an area some topical maps may wish to show it. Up to them. For now, let's just suggest a scheme for mappers to use. -- Andrew Chadwick _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
