I've mapped landuse=residential out in the country side though not to a huge extent but as far as I can tell there's no reason not to (open to correction). What I mean is, if it's a residential property and would get mapped as such in the city, the fact it's in the countryside should make no difference, the same tagging applies.
I take the point about including farmland in that. That should be mapped separately and tagged appropriately along with farmyard and farm buildings mapping. Dave On 8 Apr 2016 08:15, "Marc Gemis" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Rory McCann <[email protected]> wrote: > > Conversely, I've seen rough landuse=residental drawn over a few houses > > which are strung out in rural ireland. Most of the area inside the > > area is fields, not residential. That's not accurate. Map the > > individual houses, but you don't need a residential landuse for a few > > houses in rural areas. > > > > And not everywhere in OSM needs to be in a "landuse" tag. > > Please explain, I am setting my first baby steps in landuse mapping > and want to know what I should do ? I have heard other opinions as > well, but I'm interested why we should not cover the globe with > landuse/landcover/natural tags. > Isn't every land in use ? How can we calculate the total amount of > square meters of land used for living if you do not draw a > landuse=residential around each small group of houses ? > > regards > > m > > p.s. In Belgium we usually do not have housing estates with a name. So > we need different criteria anyhow on when we draw a > landuse=residential area. > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ie mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie > _______________________________________________ Talk-ie mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
