2012/1/17 Nathan Edgars II <[email protected]>: > On 1/17/2012 6:28 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> 2012/1/17 Maarten Deen<[email protected]>: >>> >>> On 2012-01-16 23:27, Robin Paulson wrote: >>>> >>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=-36.878407&lon=174.741523&zoom=19 >>>> >>>> the landuse polygon has an orange highlight on it, why does it do that? >>> >>> >>> Just a hint on mapping (not to Robin in particular): I think it is >>> unnecessary to cut up landuse=residential areas just because there is a >>> road >>> there. The road itself is as much part of the residential area as the >>> ground >>> the houses stand on. IMHO there is no reason not to make the >>> landuse=residential be contiguous across multiple roads. >> >> >> >> I disagree. Public roads generally are a different landuse (i.e. they >> are roads). Smaller landuse entities also are much easier to refine >> later. And yet another point: landuse mapped like in this example >> conveys more information because it indicates the border of the >> private properties. > > > I'd probably split the polygons only at Sandringham (which I'd make > tertiary), unless each block has its own name. Residential roads are > obviously part of a residential landuse.
I find it useless to map such wide areas as landuses. There's no point in tagging a whole village's area as landuse=residential, and there's no point in making a sixty-km-wide polygon to indicate that between Parma and Reggio Emilia there's cultivated land. As to residential roads, I don't think they are part of the landuse. I agree that "service"s (especially driveways) and "living_street"s are, but a residential road is not a place to live, nor it is meant to be used only by the residents. Regards, Simone _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
