Overlapping “landuse=“ is fine when it represents reality correctly. For example, many city centres are both residential and commercial or commercial and retail, when the buildings are mixed use.
Similarly, if you are micro mapping private residential lawns with landuse=grass, or residential gardens with leisure=garden, these do not need to be excluded from the residential landuse. (Not that I would waste time on mapping private lawns myself, but if you want to...) -Joseph On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 7:56 AM Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 23:41, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> Would it need a multipolygon? My impression of the ODA is an open patch >> of ground in / beside a residential area. If that is the case, wouldn't it >> be much simpler to just mark a new area in as landuse=o_d_a? (accept it >> wouldn't be abbreviated) >> > > Overlapping landuse often works, but only because the carto people juggle > z-indexes > to make it work. They're not overly happy doing that, I believe. It also > doesn't always > work well: if ever you've put a pond in a wood without a multipolygon you > get > waterlogged trees. It also makes database queries somewhat more simpler > if you're > asking what is at point A and you get one answer rather than two answers, > or one of > two answers chosen at random. A multipolygon is a little more work for > the mapper, > but not much more. > > Now I expect both the carto and db people to tell me I'm wrong about > that. If they do, > I'll just point out that it's not wrong to use a multipolygon for this. > > -- > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
