On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:56 AM, John Smith <[email protected]>wrote:
> 2009/10/7 Anthony <[email protected]>: > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:21 AM, John Smith <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> 2009/10/7 Anthony <[email protected]>: > >> > Most sidewalks pretty much meet that criterion, and roads sort of meet > >> > it > >> > (not at intersections, though). > >> > >> There is a landuse area around roads that isn't part of surrounding > >> property boundaries. > > > > I'm quite aware of that, and that's why I think there should be a > > landuse=right_of_way, completely separate from the "highway". > > > > I wonder, how do others define "highway", if not as "a path of travel"? > It > > contains such things as roads, sidewalks, and dirt paths, and presumably > > also includes paths of travel which are completely unbuilt (the unpaved > > grass on the side of the road gets a "highway" tag, right?)." > > > > landuse=road_reserve ? > I'm not sure they're always used for roads, but good enough! I'm planning on implementing this, probably in the next few weeks (though it may be a few months, and I may have a small scale run within a week or two). Should I use landuse=road_reserve, landuse=right_of_way, or not bother tagging those areas at all? On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Chris Morley <[email protected]> wrote: > Landuse areas which cross a large number of ways are very common. > Surely you don't intend to divide say, Delamere Forest, into a large > number of separated areas separated by the paths and tracks? > In that case, you shouldn't, because the paths and tracks are part of the forest. Likewise, you wouldn't split the landuse at a service highway which goes through a landuse=commercial. But that's not an example of "landuse" abutting a "highway", it's an example of a "highway" cutting through a "landuse". "Landuse" and "highway" are really independent concepts, aren't they? The main counterexample where you *would* have a "landuse" abutting a "highway" is in the case of "pedestrian areas", which are tagged as "highway" in addition to being tagged as "landuse", right? Whether or not a "highway" should cut through a "landuse=residential" or "landuse=farm" is probably jurisdiction dependent. Where I live there are specific areas of land set aside for roads and other specific areas of land set aside for houses. Seems to me like a clear case for separate "landuse" areas, no? If you don't have the data to separate out the two, that's fine. I don't mind "highway" ways cutting through "landuse" areas so much. But that's not the same as using the "highway" way as the border to your "landuse" area. The only way I can see doing that is when the "landuse" area is *also* a "highway" area.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
