Maybe I was unclear, or maybe we're talking at cross-purposes (or maybe I'm just wrong!). You're quite right, a fair share of built-up areas are residential -- I would go further and say that the *majority* of built-up areas are residential! But I don't mean using a single giant polygon to denote a particular settlement. I agree with you there. Rather, I mean ensuring that all major residential areas surrounding the "high street/CBD/whatever" of a settlement are covered by a network of "landuse=residential" polygons. The density of these polygons is up to the mapper, starting with larger, rougher polygons which can be granularised as time goes by. I don't see why this is mapping for the renderer, any more than covering an area of forest, visible on aerial imagery, with a large, rough "natural=wood/forest" polygon would be, in the absence of anything better.
Out of interest, do you also take issue with the central point of my last post -- that "landuse=retail" polygons may be seen as a similar sort of concept to Google's beige areas? (assuming such polygons are placed by mappers who have at least a passing knowledge of the area in question) Thanks, David. On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > sent from a phone > >> Il giorno 11 ago 2016, alle ore 15:10, David Fisher <[email protected]> >> ha scritto: >> >> (I'm also a fan of >> "landuse=residential" polygons to highlight built-up areas, though I >> know some OSM-ers disagree.) > > > I believe most OSMers, including the wiki, disagree. Sounds like a clear case > of mapping for the renderer (presuming it's built up but not residential of > course, a fair share of built up areas in settlements are indeed residential > landuse). > Why don't you use place polygons? > > > cheers, > Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
