Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Mark Wagner]

The problem with "suburb" is like the problem with "football": there
are two meanings, and a very large population that doesn't know about
the other meaning.  That guarantees widespread misuse.

-- 
Mark

On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 11:55:55 -0400
Brian Stromberg  wrote:

> If suburb is a commonly understood and useful concept in other
> countries then it seems good to keep it around. I don't really know
> what the implications are of retirement or what the process would be.
> I would instead advocate for country-specific guidance on its usage.
> 
> --
> Brian
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:38 AM Paul Johnson 
> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:32 AM Brian Stromberg
> >  wrote:
> >  
> >> This contradicts the OSM wiki but seems like the only way to avoid
> >> confusion.
> >>  
> >
> > Much like sport=american_football vs sport=soccer, this makes sense.
> > Maybe it's time to retire place=suburb as a tag due to its
> > ambiguity?
> >
> >  
> >> The only reason I can think of to use 'suburb' as a tag in the
> >> context of the United States would be if a tag indicating 'central
> >> city' or something similar was introduced.
> >>  
> >
> > Ostensibly, that's what place=city was supposed to be, but not
> > helping OSM would be that some places have cities and towns of
> > different legal importance (Oklahoma), or "it's a city or it's not
> > a city" with no room for nuance (Oregon).  Not making things any
> > easier is how lopsided populations are in the US, a midsize
> > municipality is about 5500 people.  Once you get to about 90,000,
> > you're in the top 2% largest anything in the US.
> > ___ Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >  


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[stevea]

I'd like to clarify my take-aways from this discussion, hopefully yours, too.  
Thank you for reading and your patience.

Brian says that a common (THE common) definition of "suburb" in the US is 
(roughly) "a smaller city next to or near a much larger one as part of a 
conurbation."  I agree that is a very frequent understanding of how the word 
"suburb" is both used and understood in the USA, even most or almost all of the 
time.

I also assert that there is a (much less-common, agreed) usage for "suburb" in 
the US that is more in line with how OSM tags with place=suburb, as a kind of 
"district of a larger city."  Magnolia (in Seattle) is tagged place=suburb, 
believed correctly as to how that tag should be used, even though Magnolia is 
CALLED a "neighborhood" in local vernacular.  It seems these two usages of 
"suburb" can co-exist simultaneously (OSM tagging and local vernacular) while 
disagreeing slightly, though with some confusion unless and until this 
clarification is understood.  OK, we've discussed it, I hope it is less 
confusing.

(In the USA, we tend to CALL someplace like Bellevue a "suburb," though we 
correctly TAG it a place=city in OSM.  Such differences between "call" and 
"tag" are the source of much of the confusion about "suburb" and "neighborhood" 
or place=neighbourhood).

I fully support the use of place=neighbourhood tagging on nodes or polygons in 
the USA where it makes sense to do so.  In a previous post, I said the logic of 
using place=neighbourhood in Seattle makes less sense, as there is a hierarchy 
with using place=* (city, suburb, neighbourhood, among other values if greater 
granularity exists).  So, with what are CALLED neighborhoods being actually 
TAGGED place=suburb, there is "excess room" in that hierarchy:  with Seattle 
tagged "city" and Magnolia (and other so-called neighborhoods) tagged "suburb," 
tagging Magnolia (and others) with place=neighbourhood (because it is "called" 
that) would leave a gap between neighbourhood and city:  what suburb would 
Magnolia be a part of?  Yes, as it was said somewhere that Seattle's 
"neighborhoods" have specific boundaries, it could be a small OSM project to 
restructure Seattle from nodes-tagged-suburb to polygons-tagged-neighbourhood.  
That could happen, though I still ask what place=suburb tag, if any, would be 
appropriate to bridge the gap between neighbourhood and city.  Perhaps none, 
and that is OK, I'm not sure if this is "allowed" with place=* tagging, maybe 
it is.

In the example I gave in the city of Santa Cruz (Prospect Heights 
"neighborhood," now tagged with a relatively large landuse=residential PLUS 
smaller more-correct, "block-level" landuse=residential polygons), our county 
wiki outlines a strategy for the already-existing large landuse=residential 
polygons (older, less correct, "first draft") and the smaller 
landuse=residential polygons (newer, more correct, "corrections to first draft 
underway"):  when all the smaller, more correct polygons are completed, the 
landuse=residential tag on the larger, less correct is changed to 
place=neighbourhood!  Santa Cruz, a city of about 65,000, already has five 
nodes tagged place=suburb, (13,000 in a suburb seems about right, these suburb 
names are widely used), as well as five or so "smaller" (in identity) scattered 
place=locality nodes (slightly different than the suburb or neighborhood names).

This all works both in how the real world names things and in OSM:  the City 
(multipolygon) is tagged place=city, its five suburbs (in the less common 
sense) are nodes tagged place=suburb, the "residential neighborhoods" are NOW 
tagged landuse=residential, yet OSM is on track (and documents how) we're 
converting these to better-granularity "block-level" landuse=residential 
polygons inside of larger polygons, and these larger polygons will be changed 
from landuse=residential to place=neighbourhood when full "inner 
high-granularity" polygons are completed inside of the to-be-designated 
place=neighbourhood larger enclosing polygons.  (Additionally, there are some 
scattered nodes tagged place=locality, what might be considered "the bottom of 
the hierarchy," which have accrued and stabilized according to local 
convention).  Clear!

May this clarify similar strategies for better place=* tagging in the USA.  It 
is complicated when US English diverges from the more British (or Australian) 
English that strongly influences wiki definitions of tags, but with some 
discussion, we can both better understand these potentially confusing (but 
ultimately understandable) differences, and tag well, even in the USA.

SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Kevin Kenny]

Another vote for Evin and Minh's interpretation.

I've been tagging named, signed, suburban (in the US sense)
subdivisions with landuse=residential and name=*.

I make no distinction among the subdivisions that consist of
apartments, terraces, or detached houses (except when mapping the
buildings themselves): thus, I've mapped 'Hillcrest Villaage' and 'Van
Antwerp Village' (apartment complexes), 'Village Meadow' and 'Country
Gardens' (condos), 'Orchard Park' (mixed condos and detached houses)
and 'Hawthorne Hill' (detached houses) all as landuse=residential
name=*.

I overlap natural=wood where appropriate, since the overlap of landuse
and landcover causes no conflict. I work similarly with
amenity=parking when the parking lot is part of the community. If
there's landuse=basin, landuse=religious, or something similar inside
the area, I make a cutout, since those are conflicting land uses, even
if the drainage basin or church is part of the planned community.

I've contemplated using place=neighbourhood (on either node or way)
with them, but eventually concluded that it was too subjective a
decision for whether residents would self-identify their neighbourhood
as being the same as their subdivision.  To someone from Niskayuna,
New York, I might say that I live in Orchard Park, or that Andrea
lives in Windsor Estates - the locals know most of the subdivision
names, and many of them have the names of the main entrance roads
match the name of the subdivision (Orchard Park Road, Windsor Drive).
To someone who isn't local, I'd more likely reference cross streets or
landmarks: "the subdivision on the north side of the high school". I
have no problem, though, with putting the name of the subdivision on
the landuse=residential polygon: the names are signed and
field-verifiable.

When I'm micromapping a neighbourhood, I do map private swimming pools
because the fire department appreciates it.

I try to respect privacy, and map landuse=residential on individual
lots only when the lot is completely surrounded by other land uses.
That case is hard to reconcile with privacy: if someone owns a parcel
that has park land (in the US sense) on two sides, a wastewater plant
on a third, and a river on the fourth, the parcel is going to be
visible in any case as the hole among the other land uses.  To have it
not be deducible, I'd have to refrain from mapping one or another of
the adjoining facilities, and I think we all agree that parks,
wastewater plants and rivers are objects that ought to be mapped.



On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:48 AM Evin Fairchild  wrote:
>
> I totally agree with Minh here. I always thought that it was standard 
> parctice in OSM to add the name tag to a landuse=residential way that 
> encompasses the subdivision. Subdivision names aren't always used in common 
> parlance (especially if it's a smaller subdivision) so most people wouldn't 
> necessarily consider the subdivision name to be the name of the neighborhood 
> that they live in.
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 12:44 AM Minh Nguyen  
> wrote:
>>
>> Vào lúc 18:40 2020-09-22, Paul Johnson đã viết:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:36 PM Mike N
>> > > > > wrote:
>> >
>> > On 9/22/2020 9:26 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> >  > The extra hamlet nodes are import remainders that haven't
>> > yet been
>> >  > converted to landuse areas.   The general landuse zones for
>> > that area
>> >  > have been identified, but do not exactly correspond to the named
>> >  > subdivisions.   As I get a chance to survey, I divide the
>> > landuse into
>> >  > subdivisions and convert the node to a named area for the
>> > subdivision.
>> >  >
>> >  >
>> >  > Please don't expand these as landuse, please expand them as
>> >  > place=neighborhood instead.  Landuse polygons should be congruent
>> > to the
>> >  > actual land use.
>> >
>> > That's a good point: the subdivisions often contain one or more landuse
>> > basins, clusters of trees, etc.   I've been thinking of them as one big
>> > blob, but it seem correct on a more micromap level to mark them as
>> > place=, and identify the smaller landuse areas (which are sometimes all
>> > residential).
>> >
>> >
>> > Exactly.  My rule of thumb is if you're thinking about putting a name on
>> > it, and it's not a shopping center, apartment complex or similar large
>> > but contiguous landuse, then landuse=* probably isn't what your polygon
>> > should be.
>>
>> It's common, intuitive, and IMO beneficial to map a planned,
>> suburban-style residential development as a single named
>> landuse=residential area. These developments have well-defined
>> boundaries and are primarily residential in character. If there are some
>> wooded lots in the subdivision, it's perfectly fine to map a
>> natural=wood area inside of or partially overlapping the
>> landuse=residential area, ideally without being connected 

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Brian Stromberg]

If suburb is a commonly understood and useful concept in other countries
then it seems good to keep it around. I don't really know what the
implications are of retirement or what the process would be. I would
instead advocate for country-specific guidance on its usage.

--
Brian


On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:38 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:32 AM Brian Stromberg 
> wrote:
>
>> This contradicts the OSM wiki but seems like the only way to avoid
>> confusion.
>>
>
> Much like sport=american_football vs sport=soccer, this makes sense.
> Maybe it's time to retire place=suburb as a tag due to its ambiguity?
>
>
>> The only reason I can think of to use 'suburb' as a tag in the context of
>> the United States would be if a tag indicating 'central city' or something
>> similar was introduced.
>>
>
> Ostensibly, that's what place=city was supposed to be, but not helping OSM
> would be that some places have cities and towns of different legal
> importance (Oklahoma), or "it's a city or it's not a city" with no room for
> nuance (Oregon).  Not making things any easier is how lopsided populations
> are in the US, a midsize municipality is about 5500 people.  Once you get
> to about 90,000, you're in the top 2% largest anything in the US.
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Evin Fairchild]

I totally agree with Minh here. I always thought that it was standard
parctice in OSM to add the name tag to a landuse=residential way that
encompasses the subdivision. Subdivision names aren't always used in common
parlance (especially if it's a smaller subdivision) so most people wouldn't
necessarily consider the subdivision name to be the name of the
neighborhood that they live in.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 12:44 AM Minh Nguyen 
wrote:

> Vào lúc 18:40 2020-09-22, Paul Johnson đã viết:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:36 PM Mike N
> >  > > wrote:
> >
> > On 9/22/2020 9:26 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >  > The extra hamlet nodes are import remainders that haven't
> > yet been
> >  > converted to landuse areas.   The general landuse zones for
> > that area
> >  > have been identified, but do not exactly correspond to the
> named
> >  > subdivisions.   As I get a chance to survey, I divide the
> > landuse into
> >  > subdivisions and convert the node to a named area for the
> > subdivision.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > Please don't expand these as landuse, please expand them as
> >  > place=neighborhood instead.  Landuse polygons should be congruent
> > to the
> >  > actual land use.
> >
> > That's a good point: the subdivisions often contain one or more
> landuse
> > basins, clusters of trees, etc.   I've been thinking of them as one
> big
> > blob, but it seem correct on a more micromap level to mark them as
> > place=, and identify the smaller landuse areas (which are sometimes
> all
> > residential).
> >
> >
> > Exactly.  My rule of thumb is if you're thinking about putting a name on
> > it, and it's not a shopping center, apartment complex or similar large
> > but contiguous landuse, then landuse=* probably isn't what your polygon
> > should be.
>
> It's common, intuitive, and IMO beneficial to map a planned,
> suburban-style residential development as a single named
> landuse=residential area. These developments have well-defined
> boundaries and are primarily residential in character. If there are some
> wooded lots in the subdivision, it's perfectly fine to map a
> natural=wood area inside of or partially overlapping the
> landuse=residential area, ideally without being connected to it. This
> approach is supported by longstanding documentation [1], old threads
> [2], and good support in both renderers [3] and search engines.
>
> There have also been old discussions where folks have conflated the
> concept of landcover with landuse. [4] But I find this approach overly
> academic. Taking it to the logical extreme, landuse=residential would
> only be coincident to each house in a subdivision, given that the yards
> are non-dwellings.
>
> I don't see the need for a fundamental distinction between planned
> residential developments consisting of multi-family apartments and those
> consisting of single-family houses, such that the former would be mapped
> as a coherent landuse area but the latter would be a shapeless place
> point. Where there's no such distinction, the landuse areas lend
> themselves to ab intuitive rendering that's good for navigating suburban
> sprawl. [5]
>
> If a planned development truly is actually mixed-use, and not only in a
> garden-level micromapping sense, then something other than landuse=*
> would be reasonable, since a particular landuse doesn't characterize
> that development anyways. Named landuse=residential areas also don't
> tend to make as much sense in urban areas, older inner suburbs, and
> rural areas. But the areas in changeset 91255294 aren't mixed-use
> developments; they're residential areas in a suburban setting.
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1087300
> [2] I previously wrote on this topic in
> 
> and
> it seemed like other respondents were taking the same approach.
> [3] https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/351
> [4]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2017-January/019811.html
> [5] https://osm.org/go/ZTVSa4OB
>
> --
> m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:32 AM Brian Stromberg 
wrote:

> This contradicts the OSM wiki but seems like the only way to avoid
> confusion.
>

Much like sport=american_football vs sport=soccer, this makes sense.  Maybe
it's time to retire place=suburb as a tag due to its ambiguity?


> The only reason I can think of to use 'suburb' as a tag in the context of
> the United States would be if a tag indicating 'central city' or something
> similar was introduced.
>

Ostensibly, that's what place=city was supposed to be, but not helping OSM
would be that some places have cities and towns of different legal
importance (Oklahoma), or "it's a city or it's not a city" with no room for
nuance (Oregon).  Not making things any easier is how lopsided populations
are in the US, a midsize municipality is about 5500 people.  Once you get
to about 90,000, you're in the top 2% largest anything in the US.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Brian Stromberg]

>
> I don't know that I agree with "suburbs have had a very clear definition
> in the United States for decades."  To wit, some would say that a "suburb"
> can be an incorporated city that is smaller than, but "associated with"
> (and maybe even sharing a partial contiguous boundary with) a larger city,
> of which it "is a suburb."  (For example, Bellevue to Seattle, or El Cajon
> to San Diego).  These are quite precisely defined as incorporated cities
> with rather exact boundaries.
>

This is the only definition I've ever encountered in the US. I don't think
anyone who lives in Seattle would consider Wallingford, Fremont, or
Magnolia to be suburbs, much like nobody would consider the Upper East Side
or SoHo to be suburbs of New York City.

The all-knowing Wikipedia agrees with Minh [1], it looks like OSM uses the
UK/Aus/NZ/Ireland definition of suburb. That usage does not reconcile well
with the American usage which is more of a relational definition (Y is a
suburb of X). It seems like the proper procedure is to avoid using the tag
at all and use neighbourhood instead (if a tag is required). This
contradicts the OSM wiki but seems like the only way to avoid confusion.
The only reason I can think of to use 'suburb' as a tag in the context of
the United States would be if a tag indicating 'central city' or something
similar was introduced.

Just my two cents.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb

--
Brian


On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 5:37 AM Minh Nguyen 
wrote:

> Vào lúc 11:02 2020-09-23, stevea đã viết:
> > On Sep 23, 2020, at 10:51 AM, Brian Stromberg 
> wrote:
> >> A short question of a lengthy response: What is the history behind that
> definition of 'suburb'? Is it a result of the term being used that way in
> UK/Europe/elsewhere? Seems like an odd usage, since "suburbs" have had a
> very clear definition in the United States for decades now, and it has
> nothing to do with neighborhoods.
> >
> > I believe it is UK-derived, as are many OSM "definitions" (usually /
> often clarified in wiki for that key).
>
> If I'm not mistaken, the definition on the wiki seems to align more
> closely with the meaning of "suburb" in Australian English, in which
> it's understood to be anywhere within the city, even near the central
> business district. [1] place=suburb was originally proposed by an
> Australian mapper in 2006. [2] Also, around early 2008, Australia jumped
> from 7.8% to 29% of global place=suburb usage, which could have helped
> to reinforce that definition. [3]
>
> The wiki says place=suburb is "in a place=town or place=city", but that
> doesn't necessarily say it has to lie within the administrative boundary
> that contains the place=town/city as a label. place=town/city is mapped
> as a POI, not as an area with distinct boundaries. But even so, it is
> pretty far from how Americans associate suburbs with distinct
> incorporated municipalities or unincorporated areas on the outskirts of
> the city.
>
> [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/suburb#English
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Diff/55503
> [3] https://ohsome.org/apps/dashboard/
>
> --
> m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 11:02 2020-09-23, stevea đã viết:

On Sep 23, 2020, at 10:51 AM, Brian Stromberg  wrote:

A short question of a lengthy response: What is the history behind that definition of 
'suburb'? Is it a result of the term being used that way in UK/Europe/elsewhere? Seems 
like an odd usage, since "suburbs" have had a very clear definition in the 
United States for decades now, and it has nothing to do with neighborhoods.


I believe it is UK-derived, as are many OSM "definitions" (usually / often 
clarified in wiki for that key).


If I'm not mistaken, the definition on the wiki seems to align more 
closely with the meaning of "suburb" in Australian English, in which 
it's understood to be anywhere within the city, even near the central 
business district. [1] place=suburb was originally proposed by an 
Australian mapper in 2006. [2] Also, around early 2008, Australia jumped 
from 7.8% to 29% of global place=suburb usage, which could have helped 
to reinforce that definition. [3]


The wiki says place=suburb is "in a place=town or place=city", but that 
doesn't necessarily say it has to lie within the administrative boundary 
that contains the place=town/city as a label. place=town/city is mapped 
as a POI, not as an area with distinct boundaries. But even so, it is 
pretty far from how Americans associate suburbs with distinct 
incorporated municipalities or unincorporated areas on the outskirts of 
the city.


[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/suburb#English
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Diff/55503
[3] https://ohsome.org/apps/dashboard/

--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 21:47 2020-09-22, Paul Johnson đã viết:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:56 PM stevea 
> wrote:


If you MUST tag place=neighbourhood (note the u) see if you agree
with me that this tag makes most sense in a hierarchy where
place=suburb (and perhaps quarter, if applicable, is/are above) also
exist(s).  I'm not strictly saying I believe that
place=neighbourhood CANNOT exist without place=suburb, but it makes
me wrinkle my brow a bit at it not fitting as well as a
landuse=residential (multi)polygon might rather generically and
innocently (without any hierarchy required) fit in.


Landuse=residential fits better for the lots within a place, not as a 
substitute for it.


I've never gotten into mapping individual lots, but I agree that 
landuse=residential is a reasonable tag to use in conjunction with 
place=plot. [1] I don't think that needs to be mutually exclusive of 
mapping the surrounding subdivision as a named landuse=residential area.


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dplot

--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 18:40 2020-09-22, Paul Johnson đã viết:



On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:36 PM Mike N 
> wrote:


On 9/22/2020 9:26 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
 >         The extra hamlet nodes are import remainders that haven't
yet been
 >     converted to landuse areas.   The general landuse zones for
that area
 >     have been identified, but do not exactly correspond to the named
 >     subdivisions.   As I get a chance to survey, I divide the
landuse into
 >     subdivisions and convert the node to a named area for the
subdivision.
 >
 >
 > Please don't expand these as landuse, please expand them as
 > place=neighborhood instead.  Landuse polygons should be congruent
to the
 > actual land use.

That's a good point: the subdivisions often contain one or more landuse
basins, clusters of trees, etc.   I've been thinking of them as one big
blob, but it seem correct on a more micromap level to mark them as
place=, and identify the smaller landuse areas (which are sometimes all
residential).


Exactly.  My rule of thumb is if you're thinking about putting a name on 
it, and it's not a shopping center, apartment complex or similar large 
but contiguous landuse, then landuse=* probably isn't what your polygon 
should be.


It's common, intuitive, and IMO beneficial to map a planned, 
suburban-style residential development as a single named 
landuse=residential area. These developments have well-defined 
boundaries and are primarily residential in character. If there are some 
wooded lots in the subdivision, it's perfectly fine to map a 
natural=wood area inside of or partially overlapping the 
landuse=residential area, ideally without being connected to it. This 
approach is supported by longstanding documentation [1], old threads 
[2], and good support in both renderers [3] and search engines.


There have also been old discussions where folks have conflated the 
concept of landcover with landuse. [4] But I find this approach overly 
academic. Taking it to the logical extreme, landuse=residential would 
only be coincident to each house in a subdivision, given that the yards 
are non-dwellings.


I don't see the need for a fundamental distinction between planned 
residential developments consisting of multi-family apartments and those 
consisting of single-family houses, such that the former would be mapped 
as a coherent landuse area but the latter would be a shapeless place 
point. Where there's no such distinction, the landuse areas lend 
themselves to ab intuitive rendering that's good for navigating suburban 
sprawl. [5]


If a planned development truly is actually mixed-use, and not only in a 
garden-level micromapping sense, then something other than landuse=* 
would be reasonable, since a particular landuse doesn't characterize 
that development anyways. Named landuse=residential areas also don't 
tend to make as much sense in urban areas, older inner suburbs, and 
rural areas. But the areas in changeset 91255294 aren't mixed-use 
developments; they're residential areas in a suburban setting.


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1087300
[2] I previously wrote on this topic in 
 and 
it seemed like other respondents were taking the same approach.

[3] https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/351
[4] 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2017-January/019811.html

[5] https://osm.org/go/ZTVSa4OB

--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[stevea]

On Sep 23, 2020, at 10:51 AM, Brian Stromberg  wrote:
> A short question of a lengthy response: What is the history behind that 
> definition of 'suburb'? Is it a result of the term being used that way in 
> UK/Europe/elsewhere? Seems like an odd usage, since "suburbs" have had a very 
> clear definition in the United States for decades now, and it has nothing to 
> do with neighborhoods.

I believe it is UK-derived, as are many OSM "definitions" (usually / often 
clarified in wiki for that key).

I don't know that I agree with "suburbs have had a very clear definition in the 
United States for decades."  To wit, some would say that a "suburb" can be an 
incorporated city that is smaller than, but "associated with" (and maybe even 
sharing a partial contiguous boundary with) a larger city, of which it "is a 
suburb."  (For example, Bellevue to Seattle, or El Cajon to San Diego).  These 
are quite precisely defined as incorporated cities with rather exact boundaries.

Some say that a "suburb" is a subset of an incorporated city, like a district 
of that city.  (For example, Magnolia to Seattle, or Mid-City to San Diego).  
These are often amorphous and imprecisely defined, though there might be 
agreement at a rough "center" or "town square that defines the central 
character of this suburb," but not always.

At least in the USA, I think many would nod our heads and say "yes" (both).  In 
short, both "definitions" (or really, "understandings") of "suburb" are 
correct, perhaps depending on context or a given region / locality.  I don't 
think that (at least these two, there may be more) this is a "very clear 
definition in the United States."

The "definition" of "neighborhood" in the USA is even less clear, though it is 
possible to draw the beginnings of a rough box around it.  We could spend some 
time trying to refine this, but I believe it would be difficult and possibly 
contentious, but it could also bear fruit for purposes of better tagging here.

SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Brian Stromberg]

A short question of a lengthy response: What is the history behind that
definition of 'suburb'? Is it a result of the term being used that way in
UK/Europe/elsewhere? Seems like an odd usage, since "suburbs" have had a
very clear definition in the United States for decades now, and it has
nothing to do with neighborhoods.

--
Brian


On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:36 PM stevea  wrote:

> Below, I answer Paul (first) and Joseph (second), both with substantial
> detail, so "lengthy post ahead."
>
> Paul Johnson  wrote:
> > In terms of Seattle, I don't think Ballard or Magnolia are a suburb.
> They're more of a neighborhood, both subordinate to Seattle.  Mercer Island
> or Bellvue are more suburbs as they're their own cities but really wouldn't
> matter or properly stand on their own without Seattle being in the
> immediate vicinity.  Note that place=city, place=neighborhood and
> place=suburb are all extant tags in common use already.
>
> I make the point in my previous post(s) and this one as well:  let's use
> care with differences between "Neighborhood" and "Suburb" (local
> vernacular, I've no problem with how people describe their local areas) vs.
> place=neighbourhood and place=suburb (OSM tagging, contrasted with
> vernacular).  In terms of Seattle, sure, Paul:  you, Clifford and I all
> likely agree that Ballard and Magnolia are CALLED "neighborhoods" by
> citizens.  However, TAGGING them place=suburb is not only correct
> (according to our wiki, especially given the relative size of Seattle as a
> larger city), it is what OSM correctly does.  I believe it would be
> incorrect to tag these place=neighbourhood ("a smaller named,
> geographically localised place within a suburb of a larger city") for one
> simple reason:  if Ballard and Magnolia are indeed place=neighbourhood in
> OSM, what is their "larger" place=suburb?  Bzzzt:  that doesn't work.
> Rather, place=suburb does work.  Go ahead and "call" them "Neighborhoods,"
> but please TAG them place=suburb.  Oh, OSM already does tag like that.
>
> Again, Bellevue is a de facto "suburb" of Seattle:  part of the
> conurbation of "Greater Seattle" one might say in local vernacular,
> according to Census Bureau conventions or by demographers in general who
> speak US English.  However, in OSM (both the idealized sense of what we
> should tag and actual tagging that is done), Bellevue is certainly both a
> "city" and place=city, with its population of perhaps 150,000.  That is
> most certainly NOT a place=suburb in the sense OSM defines it.  Oh, OSM
> already does tag like that.
>
> Paul further wrote:
> > Landuse-residential fits better for the lots within a place, not as a
> substitute for it..
>
> I don't wholly disagree.  (Meaning I agree).  Although I might say
> "blocks" rather than "lots," as the latter is far too granularly small and
> gets too close to cadastral-level data, which many agree don't belong in
> OSM.  Let's acknowledge that data entered into OSM might "start rough" and
> be refined over two, three or more iterations before being well-accepted as
> "good enough" to remain in OSM with no need for further refinement /
> improvement.  I mean, it does:  this actually happens.
>
> For example, in Santa Cruz California, areas smaller than a square
> kilometer were drawn as polygons and added inside the city limits as the
> "neighborhoods" as they are both known to locals and defined by the city's
> website (but with no administrative representation, more like "areas
> convenient to delineate like this as neighborhoods").  These are tagged
> landuse=residential and name=*, for example Lighthouse/West Cliff [1] or
> The Circles [2].  One such "neighborhood," Prospect Heights [3], has had
> ADDITIONAL, "smaller granularity" landuse=residential polygons [4], [5]
> drawn upon it that I believe most OSM contributors would agree is a very
> correct usage of that tag:  more-or-less "block-level" residential polygons
> that don't completely surround a larger area (as does [3], which also
> messily encloses a church, school and park).  This sort of "draw a large
> landuse=residential polygon that is a bit too inclusive and therefore
> slightly imprecise, but a good first draft," then later improves to the
> level we see here, is typical of OSM:  "good" at first (though not
> technically perfect), then much "better" with time and refinement.  OSM can
> be strict in its admonishments of "prescriptive" tagging (how we SHOULD
> tag), but we shouldn't to the detriment of falling into the trap of "the
> perfect is the enemy of the good."
>
> Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> > Settlements which are mapped with the place=* key are usually mapped as
> a node, not as an area.
>
> For his evidence here, Joseph uses "descriptive" OSM data (how we DO
> tag).  However, our key:place wiki (via "Populated settlements, urban"
> table, its Element column) says both nodes and ways are supported data
> structures for this tag.  Whether they are "usually" tagged this or that
> 

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[stevea]

Below, I answer Paul (first) and Joseph (second), both with substantial detail, 
so "lengthy post ahead."

Paul Johnson  wrote:
> In terms of Seattle, I don't think Ballard or Magnolia are a suburb.  They're 
> more of a neighborhood, both subordinate to Seattle.  Mercer Island or 
> Bellvue are more suburbs as they're their own cities but really wouldn't 
> matter or properly stand on their own without Seattle being in the immediate 
> vicinity.  Note that place=city, place=neighborhood and place=suburb are all 
> extant tags in common use already.

I make the point in my previous post(s) and this one as well:  let's use care 
with differences between "Neighborhood" and "Suburb" (local vernacular, I've no 
problem with how people describe their local areas) vs. place=neighbourhood and 
place=suburb (OSM tagging, contrasted with vernacular).  In terms of Seattle, 
sure, Paul:  you, Clifford and I all likely agree that Ballard and Magnolia are 
CALLED "neighborhoods" by citizens.  However, TAGGING them place=suburb is not 
only correct (according to our wiki, especially given the relative size of 
Seattle as a larger city), it is what OSM correctly does.  I believe it would 
be incorrect to tag these place=neighbourhood ("a smaller named, geographically 
localised place within a suburb of a larger city") for one simple reason:  if 
Ballard and Magnolia are indeed place=neighbourhood in OSM, what is their 
"larger" place=suburb?  Bzzzt:  that doesn't work.  Rather, place=suburb does 
work.  Go ahead and "call" them "Neighborhoods," but please TAG them 
place=suburb.  Oh, OSM already does tag like that.

Again, Bellevue is a de facto "suburb" of Seattle:  part of the conurbation of 
"Greater Seattle" one might say in local vernacular, according to Census Bureau 
conventions or by demographers in general who speak US English.  However, in 
OSM (both the idealized sense of what we should tag and actual tagging that is 
done), Bellevue is certainly both a "city" and place=city, with its population 
of perhaps 150,000.  That is most certainly NOT a place=suburb in the sense OSM 
defines it.  Oh, OSM already does tag like that.

Paul further wrote:
> Landuse-residential fits better for the lots within a place, not as a 
> substitute for it..

I don't wholly disagree.  (Meaning I agree).  Although I might say "blocks" 
rather than "lots," as the latter is far too granularly small and gets too 
close to cadastral-level data, which many agree don't belong in OSM.  Let's 
acknowledge that data entered into OSM might "start rough" and be refined over 
two, three or more iterations before being well-accepted as "good enough" to 
remain in OSM with no need for further refinement / improvement.  I mean, it 
does:  this actually happens.

For example, in Santa Cruz California, areas smaller than a square kilometer 
were drawn as polygons and added inside the city limits as the "neighborhoods" 
as they are both known to locals and defined by the city's website (but with no 
administrative representation, more like "areas convenient to delineate like 
this as neighborhoods").  These are tagged landuse=residential and name=*, for 
example Lighthouse/West Cliff [1] or The Circles [2].  One such "neighborhood," 
Prospect Heights [3], has had ADDITIONAL, "smaller granularity" 
landuse=residential polygons [4], [5] drawn upon it that I believe most OSM 
contributors would agree is a very correct usage of that tag:  more-or-less 
"block-level" residential polygons that don't completely surround a larger area 
(as does [3], which also messily encloses a church, school and park).  This 
sort of "draw a large landuse=residential polygon that is a bit too inclusive 
and therefore slightly imprecise, but a good first draft," then later improves 
to the level we see here, is typical of OSM:  "good" at first (though not 
technically perfect), then much "better" with time and refinement.  OSM can be 
strict in its admonishments of "prescriptive" tagging (how we SHOULD tag), but 
we shouldn't to the detriment of falling into the trap of "the perfect is the 
enemy of the good."

Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> Settlements which are mapped with the place=* key are usually mapped as a 
> node, not as an area.

For his evidence here, Joseph uses "descriptive" OSM data (how we DO tag).  
However, our key:place wiki (via "Populated settlements, urban" table, its 
Element column) says both nodes and ways are supported data structures for this 
tag.  Whether they are "usually" tagged this or that has relatively minor 
relevance and is poor support for an argument to choose one or the other, 
especially as both data structures are supported by our wiki documentation.

> There are many place=city areas in the USA, but that's because the tag was 
> incorrectly added to many municipal boundaries when they were first imported, 
> years ago.

Wait, what?  Why is tagging the municipal boundaries of a city with place=city 
incorrect?  Perhaps I misunderstand 

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 23/09/2020 00.52, Paul Johnson wrote:

In terms of Seattle, I don't think Ballard or Magnolia are a suburb.
They're more of a neighborhood, both subordinate to Seattle.


I admit this threw me at first also, but read 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb. To wit: "OSM's 
usage of 'suburb' is different than that used by North American English, 
where a suburb is 'an area, often residential, outside of a central city'."


In the US, we're used to a "suburb" being a separate town, village, or 
even city that is associated with a large city (New York City, Chicago, 
Houston, Los Angeles, Seattle, etc.), but that's not the definition that 
OSM uses. As I understand the wiki, the Seattle usage is correct.


--
Matthew

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Settlements which are mapped with the place=* key are usually mapped as a
node, not as an area.

There are many place=city areas in the USA, but that's because the tag was
incorrectly added to many municipal boundaries when they were first
imported, years ago.

Some neighborhoods have well-defined boundaries, such as
boundary=administrative relations, and can be mapped as such.

But most neighborhoods, like towns and villages, do not have a clear place
where the named place ends. Even in big cities with well-known
neighborhoods you will hard-pressed to get two locals to agree about the
exact place where one named neighborhood ends and another starts, unless
this is legally defined by the municipality (and even then, real estate ads
and locals will often change things).

So it's best to use place=neighbourhood, like place=town and place=suburb,
on a node at the center of the place.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 6:41 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:36 PM Mike N  wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/2020 9:26 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> > The extra hamlet nodes are import remainders that haven't yet
>> been
>> > converted to landuse areas.   The general landuse zones for that
>> area
>> > have been identified, but do not exactly correspond to the named
>> > subdivisions.   As I get a chance to survey, I divide the landuse
>> into
>> > subdivisions and convert the node to a named area for the
>> subdivision.
>> >
>> >
>> > Please don't expand these as landuse, please expand them as
>> > place=neighborhood instead.  Landuse polygons should be congruent to
>> the
>> > actual land use.
>>
>> That's a good point: the subdivisions often contain one or more landuse
>> basins, clusters of trees, etc.   I've been thinking of them as one big
>> blob, but it seem correct on a more micromap level to mark them as
>> place=, and identify the smaller landuse areas (which are sometimes all
>> residential).
>>
>
> Exactly.  My rule of thumb is if you're thinking about putting a name on
> it, and it's not a shopping center, apartment complex or similar large but
> contiguous landuse, then landuse=* probably isn't what your polygon should
> be.
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:27 PM stevea  wrote:

> On Sep 22, 2020, at 7:05 PM, Clifford Snow 
> wrote:
> > For example, in Seattle I lived in the Wallingford Neighborhood. Seattle
> has defined boundaries for each of the neighborhoods. In other areas,
> neighborhoods are roughly defined by people living there. In those cases
> using a place= tag makes more sense.
>
> Clifford:  One more thing.  Several summers ago, I lived at / house sat at
> my sister's house in the Magnolia suburb of Seattle.  I believe I mapped
> fairly well the little "village downtown" there (it was walking distance,
> as a nice suburb or neighborhood might be) as a hobby after I fed her cats,
> I'd have to check OSM data history I think summer of 2012.
>
> But you'll notice that suburbs (not Neighborhoods, as you call them) of
> Seattle are tagged in OSM as place=suburb.  (And it wasn't simply me who
> has done that, I think I only did it once or twice for Magnolia and maybe
> Ballard).  In a larger city like Seattle, this seems about right.  I don't
> like disagreeing with a friend like you about where you have lived (and all
> I did was feed my sister's cat for a few weeks, and I do love Seattle) but
> I think the jury is in about Seattle suburbs in OSM, and they are tagged
> suburb.  Does Wallingford or Ballard or Magnolia get called a neighborhood
> in local vernacular?  Sure, I don't doubt it:  you just did so yourself!
> But in OSM tagging, which is I think what we're trying to better agree
> upon, I think the tagging of place=suburb on these is correct.
>

In terms of Seattle, I don't think Ballard or Magnolia are a suburb.
They're more of a neighborhood, both subordinate to Seattle.  Mercer Island
or Bellvue are more suburbs as they're their own cities but really wouldn't
matter or properly stand on their own without Seattle being in the
immediate vicinity.  Note that place=city, place=neighborhood and
place=suburb are all extant tags in common use already.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:56 PM stevea  wrote:

> If you MUST tag place=neighbourhood (note the u) see if you agree with me
> that this tag makes most sense in a hierarchy where place=suburb (and
> perhaps quarter, if applicable, is/are above) also exist(s).  I'm not
> strictly saying I believe that place=neighbourhood CANNOT exist without
> place=suburb, but it makes me wrinkle my brow a bit at it not fitting as
> well as a landuse=residential (multi)polygon might rather generically and
> innocently (without any hierarchy required) fit in.
>

Landuse=residential fits better for the lots within a place, not as a
substitute for it.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[stevea]

On Sep 22, 2020, at 7:05 PM, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> For example, in Seattle I lived in the Wallingford Neighborhood. Seattle has 
> defined boundaries for each of the neighborhoods. In other areas, 
> neighborhoods are roughly defined by people living there. In those cases 
> using a place= tag makes more sense.

Clifford:  One more thing.  Several summers ago, I lived at / house sat at my 
sister's house in the Magnolia suburb of Seattle.  I believe I mapped fairly 
well the little "village downtown" there (it was walking distance, as a nice 
suburb or neighborhood might be) as a hobby after I fed her cats, I'd have to 
check OSM data history I think summer of 2012.

But you'll notice that suburbs (not Neighborhoods, as you call them) of Seattle 
are tagged in OSM as place=suburb.  (And it wasn't simply me who has done that, 
I think I only did it once or twice for Magnolia and maybe Ballard).  In a 
larger city like Seattle, this seems about right.  I don't like disagreeing 
with a friend like you about where you have lived (and all I did was feed my 
sister's cat for a few weeks, and I do love Seattle) but I think the jury is in 
about Seattle suburbs in OSM, and they are tagged suburb.  Does Wallingford or 
Ballard or Magnolia get called a neighborhood in local vernacular?  Sure, I 
don't doubt it:  you just did so yourself!  But in OSM tagging, which is I 
think what we're trying to better agree upon, I think the tagging of 
place=suburb on these is correct.

For the original poster's question, I think I've already stated my opinion, 
though there are certainly enough to go around!

We do a lot of landuse=residential on "neighborhoods" in the USA, especially 
without any "council" or active administration at the sub-city level.  Larger 
cities DO have these, admin_level=10 is correct on them.  Smaller cities and 
rural areas that are "a cluster of homes/houses/dwellings?"  I think a 
(multi)polygon tagged landuse=residential works well there.

SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[stevea]

Whoops, "but NOT if it isn't something like a council"
SteveA

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[stevea]

Clifford:  I certainly agree with you if (and likely only if) there is 
something like a neighborhood council that actually has some sort of 
"administrative" function (which could be as "lowly" as dog catcher, mosquito 
abatement, or "sub-municipal parks department for these three neighborhood 
parks."  These are often found in larger cities, United States/Boundaries has a 
small list of examples.  But if it is more like "what the locals call it 
between 12th and Main out to the lake" (more informal, not administrative in 
any way), and it IS exclusively residential (not big or populated enough to 
contain a commercial district, though perhaps an elementary school or a 
crossroads where there is a transit stop) I'd say landuse=residental fits 
nicely.

Again, if you think place=neighbourhood works, use it, but please try to be 
true to other values of place (like suburb) which allow neighbourhood to be 
used in a sensible hierarchy.  I believe you are suggesting admin_level=10 to 
fit into a hierarchy (and sensibly, too), but if it isn't something like a 
council (however tiny and local) but not political, as there seems to be a 
sense of wards at admin_level=9 that are purely voting / electoral districts to 
being better tagged administrative=political.

SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Clifford Snow]

Steve,
If the boundaries exist, you could use admin_level=10.

Most of the neighborhoods I'm familiar with are just small subdivisions
within the city. For example, in Seattle I lived in the Wallingford
Neighborhood. Seattle has defined boundaries for each of the neighborhoods.
In other areas, neighborhoods are roughly defined by people living there.
In those cases using a place= tag makes more sense.

Clifford

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 6:56 PM stevea  wrote:

> If you MUST tag place=neighbourhood (note the u) see if you agree with me
> that this tag makes most sense in a hierarchy where place=suburb (and
> perhaps quarter, if applicable, is/are above) also exist(s).  I'm not
> strictly saying I believe that place=neighbourhood CANNOT exist without
> place=suburb, but it makes me wrinkle my brow a bit at it not fitting as
> well as a landuse=residential (multi)polygon might rather generically and
> innocently (without any hierarchy required) fit in.
>
> SteveA
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[stevea]

If you MUST tag place=neighbourhood (note the u) see if you agree with me that 
this tag makes most sense in a hierarchy where place=suburb (and perhaps 
quarter, if applicable, is/are above) also exist(s).  I'm not strictly saying I 
believe that place=neighbourhood CANNOT exist without place=suburb, but it 
makes me wrinkle my brow a bit at it not fitting as well as a 
landuse=residential (multi)polygon might rather generically and innocently 
(without any hierarchy required) fit in.

SteveA


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:36 PM Mike N  wrote:

> On 9/22/2020 9:26 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > The extra hamlet nodes are import remainders that haven't yet
> been
> > converted to landuse areas.   The general landuse zones for that area
> > have been identified, but do not exactly correspond to the named
> > subdivisions.   As I get a chance to survey, I divide the landuse
> into
> > subdivisions and convert the node to a named area for the
> subdivision.
> >
> >
> > Please don't expand these as landuse, please expand them as
> > place=neighborhood instead.  Landuse polygons should be congruent to the
> > actual land use.
>
> That's a good point: the subdivisions often contain one or more landuse
> basins, clusters of trees, etc.   I've been thinking of them as one big
> blob, but it seem correct on a more micromap level to mark them as
> place=, and identify the smaller landuse areas (which are sometimes all
> residential).
>

Exactly.  My rule of thumb is if you're thinking about putting a name on
it, and it's not a shopping center, apartment complex or similar large but
contiguous landuse, then landuse=* probably isn't what your polygon should
be.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Mike N]

On 9/22/2020 9:26 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:

    The extra hamlet nodes are import remainders that haven't yet been
converted to landuse areas.   The general landuse zones for that area
have been identified, but do not exactly correspond to the named
subdivisions.   As I get a chance to survey, I divide the landuse into
subdivisions and convert the node to a named area for the subdivision.


Please don't expand these as landuse, please expand them as 
place=neighborhood instead.  Landuse polygons should be congruent to the 
actual land use.


That's a good point: the subdivisions often contain one or more landuse 
basins, clusters of trees, etc.   I've been thinking of them as one big 
blob, but it seem correct on a more micromap level to mark them as 
place=, and identify the smaller landuse areas (which are sometimes all 
residential).


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:20 PM Mike N  wrote:

> On 9/22/2020 8:56 PM, Karson Sommer wrote:
> >
> > Looking around the area of the edit, there is a lot of stuff from my
> > perspective that seems fishy. There are a bunch of place=hamlet nodes? I
> > certainly don't see anything that should be tagged as a hamlet, they all
> > look like place=neighborhood to me. Each of these nodes should be mapped
> > onto an explicit residential area.
>
>The extra hamlet nodes are import remainders that haven't yet been
> converted to landuse areas.   The general landuse zones for that area
> have been identified, but do not exactly correspond to the named
> subdivisions.   As I get a chance to survey, I divide the landuse into
> subdivisions and convert the node to a named area for the subdivision.
>

Please don't expand these as landuse, please expand them as
place=neighborhood instead.  Landuse polygons should be congruent to the
actual land use.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Mike N]

On 9/22/2020 8:56 PM, Karson Sommer wrote:


Looking around the area of the edit, there is a lot of stuff from my 
perspective that seems fishy. There are a bunch of place=hamlet nodes? I 
certainly don't see anything that should be tagged as a hamlet, they all 
look like place=neighborhood to me. Each of these nodes should be mapped 
onto an explicit residential area.


  The extra hamlet nodes are import remainders that haven't yet been 
converted to landuse areas.   The general landuse zones for that area 
have been identified, but do not exactly correspond to the named 
subdivisions.   As I get a chance to survey, I divide the landuse into 
subdivisions and convert the node to a named area for the subdivision.


  I see one multipolygon from back in the day when I was still marking 
subdivision areas as hamlets when converting from a node to an area.


 This is all part of the normal OSM work in progress.



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[stevea]

I'm harmonious with Minh's comments in the changeset.

The place key, with value suburb, has quite specific meanings, I don't think 
these are those.  And as we don't or shouldn't be truly precise and especially 
not authoritative with "legal subdivisions," I think the "more informal" nature 
of OSM data entry around what a local (resident) might consider "a 
neighborhood" (especially as one distinct from place=neighbourhood. which also 
has quite specific meanings) and not necessarily one taggable with 
admin_level=10 (as it hasn't any administrative neighborhood council, extant, 
but rare in the USA) then yes, use landuse=residential (with a name=*) tag.  
That has worked for some time, it does work for now, and appears it will work 
into the future.

Read https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:place (which will show this very likely 
shouldn't be used).
Read https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States_admin_level (which will show this 
very likely shouldn't be used).
Read https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:landuse.  It's a good match for "these" 
(roughly, "subdivisions"), especially with a name tag, since a bonus is the 
name tag renders nicely in Carto.  Carto rendering is not the reason to do it, 
simply a "nice to have, since it's done correctly, Carto rewards you with an 
appropriate rendering."  Carto does a pretty good job (maybe even always 
getting a bit better as time goes on) of rendering what you tag, when you tag 
appropriately.  Tag "appropriately" and help it out:  it will help you out with 
a pretty "blossom" of your tagging.  (Unless it doesn't, but then we're out at 
the hairy edge of OSM and Carto...another, bigger, topic).

SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 7:14 PM Mike N  wrote:

> Thoughts on use of place=neighborhood for subdivisions?
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/91255294
>
>Note that there are many thousands already tagged this way (5000 plus
> in a section of the southeast alone).


 I'd consider a subdivision place=neighborhood and give it a boundary.  One
of the few examples where a boundary is cut and clear on the ground even.

landuse=* isn't the right thing for this, it's not interchangeable with
place=* or boundary=*...
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Karson Sommer]

I agree with the way it was already mapped. Subdivisions should be mapped
as areas tagged with landuse=residential, place=neighborhood, and name=* if
it is named.

Looking around the area of the edit, there is a lot of stuff from my
perspective that seems fishy. There are a bunch of place=hamlet nodes? I
certainly don't see anything that should be tagged as a hamlet, they all
look like place=neighborhood to me. Each of these nodes should be mapped
onto an explicit residential area.

I'm not sure why the people in the changeset comments seem to think that a
subdivision != neighborhood. Per the OSM Wiki definition,

A *neighbourhood* is a named, geographically localised place. It may be an
area within a place =suburb
 or place
=quarter
 of a larger
settlement (such as a large place
=city
) or an area within a
smaller settlement (such as a place
=town
 or a place
=village
).

A subdivision just means a residential area with one developer. This means
all the houses will be in the same architectural style, same age, and can
be located using the subdivision name. This is the textbook definition of a
neighborhood.


On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 7:16 PM Mike N  wrote:

> Thoughts on use of place=neighborhood for subdivisions?
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/91255294
>
>Note that there are many thousands already tagged this way (5000 plus
> in a section of the southeast alone).
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Joshua Carlson]

I’ve seen it used that way. I don’t see anything wrong with it, so long as it’s actually a named place that people would refer to, as opposed to a cadastral unit. If the subdivision has one of those signs at the entrance, or locals know what you mean when someone says they live in “Hickory Creek”, or whatever. It’s not as useful to know if it’s “HICKORY CREEK FIRST RESUB UNIT 1”. Also, I would create the area similarly to landuse=residential, which does not always correspond to a subdivision’s legal boundary. Around me, there are a number of subdivisions that technically own a large portion of open space at the back as an outlot, but outside of the county’s land records, there is no distinguishable feature from aerial imagery or on the ground that would indicate the woods/meadow/etc is “in” the subdivision. But that may just be me. From: Mike NSent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 19:16To: talk-us@openstreetmap.orgSubject: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions? Thoughts on use of place=neighborhood for subdivisions? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/91255294    Note that there are many thousands already tagged this way (5000 plus in a section of the southeast alone). ___Talk-us mailing listTalk-us@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us 

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?

[Mike N]

Thoughts on use of place=neighborhood for subdivisions? 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/91255294


  Note that there are many thousands already tagged this way (5000 plus 
in a section of the southeast alone).


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us