On 5 June 2015 at 13:20, Tom Pfeifer <t.pfei...@computer.org> wrote: > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2015-06-05 13:36: > >> Am 05.06.2015 um 11:33 schrieb David Fisher <djfishe...@gmail.com>: >>> >>> 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 > > I'm doing it - using =residential for settlement. Of course, =settlement (or =place) would be better for this than =residential.
Residential in any case is somewhat vague. People do reside at work as well as home. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to the country's ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail>
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging