That's definitely an interesting answer. It seems that dividing the large landuse=residential is something that we should do (as it seems logical, even if can be tedious sometimes).
I did some digging into the wiki for trees tagging and came to these conclusions. When we think about the key definition of landuse <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse>, landcover <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover> (including its proposed page <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover>) and natural <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural>, i came to the conclusion that the only landuse tag for tree is "landuse=forest". Because the key "natural" is described as a landcover representation. It seems that natural=wood is one of the only special case where a natural tag does represent landuse in common usage (and it seems wrong relatively to the definition). If we follow strict definition, the only landuse tag for trees/forest is "landuse=forest". The others are for landcover (like the proposed landcover=trees). Should we then be conservative and use only landuse=forest in Belgium (especially because the definition for natural=wood is very rare for us) ? And use landcover tag on top of others landuses if needed (like for tree in parks). Following all these definition note that landuse include the keys landuse=*, amenity=*, leisure=* and tourism=* all as landuse representation, it implies that we should also remove the landuse=residential (or any other) where we have something like amenity=school (because it is already a landuse that probably better fit than the landuse=residential). What do you think about that ? 2017-04-28 22:16 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com>: > Here is one answer I got, Martin was so kind to put it into a diary > entry: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/dieterdreist/diary/40993 > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Lionel Giard <lionel.gi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> But for the roads, ideally, it should ideally be an area (like on the > GRB of > >> Vlaandereen or the PICC of Wallonia) with also the existing line to > allow > >> routing. I don't know, if we must change existing residential area when > >> adding area for the road, because it will probably look good on the > map, but > >> maybe it would be a problem for people using the data ?! At least it > >> shouldn't be a problem for the big highways, because they often don't > have > >> landuse at the moment (look at http://osmlanduse.org/ ). > > > > as long as you keep the current way for navigation, and just add > > area:highway there is no problem. > > Just follow the area:highway instructions on the wiki and the > > navigation will not get broken. I experimented with in on a small area > > and navigation still works. > > > > I contacted 2 mappers that map landuse in great detail (one in > > Germany/Italy, one in Japan) and asked them for some samples. > > I doubt that multipolygons are the way forward, too complex to > > maintain I fear. We should look at detailed areas in e.g. Germany and > > see how they do it. > > > > > > m > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be