Vào lúc 18:40 2020-09-22, Paul Johnson đã viết:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:36 PM Mike N
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 9/22/2020 9:26 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> The extra hamlet nodes are import remainders that haven't
yet been
> converted to landuse areas. The general landuse zones for
that area
> have been identified, but do not exactly correspond to the named
> subdivisions. As I get a chance to survey, I divide the
landuse into
> subdivisions and convert the node to a named area for the
subdivision.
>
>
> Please don't expand these as landuse, please expand them as
> place=neighborhood instead. Landuse polygons should be congruent
to the
> actual land use.
That's a good point: the subdivisions often contain one or more landuse
basins, clusters of trees, etc. I've been thinking of them as one big
blob, but it seem correct on a more micromap level to mark them as
place=, and identify the smaller landuse areas (which are sometimes all
residential).
Exactly. My rule of thumb is if you're thinking about putting a name on
it, and it's not a shopping center, apartment complex or similar large
but contiguous landuse, then landuse=* probably isn't what your polygon
should be.
It's common, intuitive, and IMO beneficial to map a planned,
suburban-style residential development as a single named
landuse=residential area. These developments have well-defined
boundaries and are primarily residential in character. If there are some
wooded lots in the subdivision, it's perfectly fine to map a
natural=wood area inside of or partially overlapping the
landuse=residential area, ideally without being connected to it. This
approach is supported by longstanding documentation [1], old threads
[2], and good support in both renderers [3] and search engines.
There have also been old discussions where folks have conflated the
concept of landcover with landuse. [4] But I find this approach overly
academic. Taking it to the logical extreme, landuse=residential would
only be coincident to each house in a subdivision, given that the yards
are non-dwellings.
I don't see the need for a fundamental distinction between planned
residential developments consisting of multi-family apartments and those
consisting of single-family houses, such that the former would be mapped
as a coherent landuse area but the latter would be a shapeless place
point. Where there's no such distinction, the landuse areas lend
themselves to ab intuitive rendering that's good for navigating suburban
sprawl. [5]
If a planned development truly is actually mixed-use, and not only in a
garden-level micromapping sense, then something other than landuse=*
would be reasonable, since a particular landuse doesn't characterize
that development anyways. Named landuse=residential areas also don't
tend to make as much sense in urban areas, older inner suburbs, and
rural areas. But the areas in changeset 91255294 aren't mixed-use
developments; they're residential areas in a suburban setting.
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1087300
[2] I previously wrote on this topic in
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-June/011131.html> and
it seemed like other respondents were taking the same approach.
[3] https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/351
[4]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2017-January/019811.html
[5] https://osm.org/go/ZTVSa4OB
--
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
