On 17 Jan 2012, at 13:37, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2012/1/17 Nathan Edgars II <[email protected]>: >> On 1/17/2012 8:10 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote: >> I'm not suggesting either of these. But a single chunk of houses is clearly >> all residential, whether it's the size of a few lots or a huge subdivision. > > > +1. public streets are not part of it. Have a look how others deal > with this at a scale of 1:2000 (zoom 18).
Aren't they? Why then do we tag them as "residential" roads then? Could it be because they're part of the residential area? >> Splitting it at roads gives no benefit and complicates editing greatly. This >> is just ridiculous: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=35.323225&lon=-119.077089&zoom=18 > > > how does that complicate anything? Connecting roads to landuses and > other areas complicates editing greatly. A mapping like the above > eases editing and is more precise then a huge landuse-polygon. I don't > find anything ridiculous in this. It complicates things greatly because you have to draw a much more complex polygon that goes around every single road on the map. Worse, editing that road then becomes a case of editing the landuse areas around it too to make them follow the new road. Ultimately though, this gets back to the same old problem that we have a disparity between how we tag roads and how we tag everything else. For pretty much everything we make an area, and label what it is, for roads, we make a single way. In my book, until we're making areas for roads (and possibly even then), the residential area extends all the way across the road. Bob _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
