*# Discussion F: landuse=residential* *...*
*QUESTION* *How is the best way to approach this? * *I welcome your comments.* Herbert.Remi This is the fifth in your 'discussion' series, and prior to that you presented two 'Topics' and 3 or more other long emails. *However you have yet to respond to a single one*. You are talking to a network of volunteers and enthusiasts who all wish to see OSM succeed and grow, and who wish to help new contributors. I presume you are a new contributor so if you have questions, then please ask them, but keep it concise and make it clear what the actual question is. If people take the time and effort to do some research for you or respond with their views and experience then please respect their contributions by responding or engaging in a discussion, or even just thanking them. What this list doesn't need is a daily thought-bomb tossed in with no care to the outcome. Adam On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 13:31, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > # Discussion F: landuse=residential > > ## The Issue > > I am very interest in improving quality and consistency. In this case, the > question is inconsistent or incomplete? I have discovered that many > residential areas have still not been mapped. > > ### Specifics: landuse=residential > > There is a land usage type with the tag RESIDENTIAL. It shows as dark grey > (Mapnik) or brown (HikeBikeMap) on the maps. For both Mapnik and > HikeBikeMap, the blank areas are shown in light grey. There is a preset for > it in the editors. It is shown as a distinct yellow in the ID editor. > > ### The problem is incomplete > > I have audited the land use in the ACT. Only about half of the residential > areas in the ACT have currently been mapped, and the other half have not. > Is this inconsistent or incomplete? Is the glass half-full or half-empty? > Has this become the standard or is it the exception? > > I think we should define it as the standard and try to get the other > suburbs up to scratch. It is easy to do. Some suburban areas where the have > been already mapped. The areas are visible on the satellite photos. > > ### The problem of inconsistent > > It is possible to see on the map that "people live there" > (landuse=residential) without drawing all the houses (building=house) on > the map. There are some suburbs in Canberra where every house has been > traced onto the map: see Wanniassa and Oxley in Canberra’s south: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=-35.4066&mlon=149.0796#map=15/-35.4066/149.0796 > > This exceeds the scope of what can be done with the approximate 24 mappers > that work in the ACT. Some developers do this already but the ACT Suburban > Land Agency (https://suburbanland.act.gov.au/en/) is not one of them. > They only sell the blocks, not build the houses. It makes sense to map > buildings for every government building and office building. I don’t care > if my house is on the map. > > ### Limiting the scope > > The ACT government has prescribed that the ACT Suburban Land Agency will > build for the coming four financial years 6588, 12261, 10000, 15000 > mixed-use dwellings. Where do you stop zooming in? On ACTmapi Images 2019 > you can see the mirror on a motor vehicle. Whether every garden shed should > be map is otherwise very questionable. Street numbering can be done > otherwise. (Street numbering in Canberra is woeful.) > > ### Definition of the scope > > I would say landuse=residential is generally all that is required as a > minimum requirement. > > ### How should landuse=residential be mapped? > > I have not had the time to review OSM Wiki on this, unfortunately. What I > have seen in the editor is that some mappers have mapped the whole suburb > with one polygon, while others have mapped every city block. The latter > sort of makes sense as land is released for auction, city blocks at a time. > The suburbs are built in stages (four for Whitlam). Each stage is sold > separately. Sill other mappers have used a hybrid approach, somewhere in > between these two options. > > QUESTION > > How is the best way to approach this? > > I welcome your comments. > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
