I've mapped landuse=residential out in the country side though not to a
huge extent but as far as I can tell there's no reason not to (open to
correction). What I mean is, if it's a residential property and would get
mapped as such in the city, the fact it's in the countryside should make no
difference, the same tagging applies.
I take the point about including farmland in that. That should be mapped
separately and tagged appropriately along with farmyard and farm buildings
mapping.
Dave
On 8 Apr 2016 08:15, "Marc Gemis" wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
> > Conversely, I've seen rough landuse=residental drawn over a few houses
> > which are strung out in rural ireland. Most of the area inside the
> > area is fields, not residential. That's not accurate. Map the
> > individual houses, but you don't need a residential landuse for a few
> > houses in rural areas.
> >
> > And not everywhere in OSM needs to be in a "landuse" tag.
>
> Please explain, I am setting my first baby steps in landuse mapping
> and want to know what I should do ? I have heard other opinions as
> well, but I'm interested why we should not cover the globe with
> landuse/landcover/natural tags.
> Isn't every land in use ? How can we calculate the total amount of
> square meters of land used for living if you do not draw a
> landuse=residential around each small group of houses ?
>
> regards
>
> m
>
> p.s. In Belgium we usually do not have housing estates with a name. So
> we need different criteria anyhow on when we draw a
> landuse=residential area.
>
> ___
> Talk-ie mailing list
> Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
>
___
Talk-ie mailing list
Talk-ie@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
