Steve Bennett <stevagewp <at> gmail.com> writes: >>I don't quite understand what you mean; if there is 'something' then why not >>just map that something? > >Heh, because I don't know what it is! It's often hard to tell the difference >between a large rural property, a farm, or even some kind of light industry. >Maybe I can see buildings and sheds, but that's all I know.
I would say map whatever you can see, that is, the buildings and sheds. Sometimes one can see areas on the ground which aren't a building, but it isn't clear whether they are fields or something else. I would say in those cases just leave them unmapped, since they will require a survey anyway. But if you feel the need to mark the boundary somehow, area=yes might do it. >Slightly related note, is it ok to use tags like "landuse=residential" at >vastly different levels of granularity. Ie, it could be a house, a block, or >what I've been doing at the moment, whole suburbs. A house would be building=yes or perhaps building=house. But for a block or a larger area, yes, tagging the landuse is fine. -- Ed Avis <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
