Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2015-06-05 13:36:
Am 05.06.2015 um 11:33 schrieb David Fisher <[email protected]>:
As for "landuse=residential" -- I agree that we could probably do
without it. But it does add to the readability of the map, especially
at low zoom levels, as it enables you to see at a glance where places
are and how big they are.
residential landuse is often seen as "default", it is often used to mark the
> built up area rather than just the residential areas (especially in villages).
> We should encourage place polygons for this and restrict the use of
residential
> landuse to residential areas.
+1. Drawing a residential around a village was the early attempt with low-res
aerial images. With the level of detail you get from both 20cm imagery and
open-data property boundaries, my preferred level of granularity is up to a
block, i.e. the landuse surrounded by residential roads (but not glued to them).
This easily allows to draw complementary landuse,
such as retail/commercial/religious/green areas
without the need for multipolygons.
As a first approach when splitting larger landuse, I typically split at
secondary/tertiary roads.
tom
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
