the landuse under roads should be highway, this has been discussed in the past. Never got popular. Alternative is area:highway, which is more popular I believe.
But you won't split the current residential areas on each street, would you ? I think overlaying landuse=residential with leisure=park is just an easy way to map, otherwise you would have to start splitting all large residential landuses each time, you map amenity=place_of_worship, parkings, parks, gardens, etc. etc. But strictly speaking you are correct, a park is not landuse=residential, but is a pond in a private garden ? Where do you draw the line ? There are mappers who loves to see more different landuses for civic buildings, church grounds, schools etc. When you ask for no gaps in landuse, what is the landuse of a beach ? of a river ? of a small ditch or path between two fields ? What is the use of a tree row along a road ? Of a grass patch that separates the cycleway from the road ? Do we really want to split up landuse up to this level ? now, or is this a long term goal ? Right now, I am more concerned about areas like http://osm.org/go/0Erc0BNv?m= . Which message does the current map give you about this area around the Prinsenlaan ? Please first look at the map and then you might look at aerial imagery or other sources ( I hope I have some images at https://xian.smugmug.com/OSM/OSM-2017/2017-04-17-Retie-Brug-2 soon) Does it match ? Let me know. @Joost I do not mind you created your own tool, it's great that there are multiple tools to analyse landuse. Each with their own benefits (e.g. easy of use vs. customizability) m. On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Lionel Giard <lionel.gi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Personally, i put Nature reserve on a special relation, as it is described > on the wiki, like this one : > http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7130732#map=17/50.68519/4.70461 > And the forest or other landuses are just part of this multipolygon. In this > example, i also have a multipolygon for the forest because, i have things > inside it. > Nothing stop you to have multiple relation at the same place (i think of > relation like a "special" polygon, and nothing stop us to make multiple > polygon on each other but slightly different in shape). > > We should really describe/decide which tag is representing a landuse > (because it can be landuse=*, leisure=* or natural=*) and if we need to > avoid putting them at the same place (like allow or not leisure=park on top > of landuse=residential ?!). Right know, we all have our own opinion and it > create some variation of the map in Belgium. > And we should avoid gap in the landuse. Thus it seems important to solve > some problems like what should be the landuse tag under a road ? > > 2017-04-27 14:29 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com>: >> >> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:50 PM, joost schouppe >> <joost.schou...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > The examples you give are already hard work to think about. Much more >> > basic >> > mistakes are made too: e.g. a forest is also a nature reserve. But then >> > someone turns the forest into a multipolygon, because there is some >> > water or >> > grassland inside of it. But the multipolygon is also used for the nature >> > reserve. Which would imply the holes in the forest are unprotected, and >> > that's usually not the case. >> >> I have been thinking about this as well. even the name belongs to the >> outer way and not the relation. >> I would say put the nature reserve tag on the outer way and the forest >> tags on the relation. Would that work ? >> >> But tagging mistakes due to bad quality aerial imagery is equally >> common I think. And those are much harder to detect I think. >> For your case, it is basically looking up all multipolygons on which >> the nature reserve tags is placed and check those. While this can be a >> long list, it is not nearly as long as checking all landuses. >> >> >> >> m >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-be mailing list >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > _______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
