Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com> writes: > I was thinking further about the idea that came up here: deduct road type > from the landuse=residential. It's different than current usage, and I dont > think it is feasable.
I did not mean "deduce road type". What I meant is that if a road is at the lowest level of the road network (level5, below ABC and U, to use UK terms), then I don't see why we should split that into level5_residential level5_not_residential as part of the fundamental road type. Both are minor, not used to get from here to there, and one has houses, and the other doesn't. But we don't have primary_residential primary_not_residential even though in the US that makes just as much sense as level5_residential and level5_not_residential. I was merely suggesting that if landuse=residential is tagged, then anybody who cared about "is this area residential" could get the answer. Not that we should somehow infer "this is highway=residential" and render it differently. Do you think that level5_residential and level5_not_residential should be rendered differently? _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
