Paul Norman quotes my previous post in this thread and writes:
This is describing the actual landuse, not the legally permitted landuse.
An example of describing the zoning instead of the actual landuse is
marking areas of the desert with no development as landuse=residential
because the government has at some point in the past zoned them as
residential.
Paul, I agree; I understand this distinction. For example, there was
a tiff in Scotts Valley, California (not far from me) circa 2009
where one OSM user entered landuse polygons directly from the
published zoning map from the Scotts Valley City Council. I began to
correct these where actual on-the-ground data disagreed with the
zoning map. For example, many areas listed as zoned commercial are
more like "intended to become commercial someday" but are truly
residential in real life/on-the-ground, so I corrected them to be
landuse=residential.
I take it as widely accepted that on-the-ground landuse is much
preferred to be entered into OSM than is "zoned by the government"
landuse. The former is correct, the latter is not and should be
removed or corrected. Especially when the zoning represents an
intention rather than reality.
What I understand Martin Koppenhoefer to say are essentially the same
things, but I'm not sure if he understands (or agrees) with Escondido
having large areas marked as landuse=residential. These are not
simply zoned residential (they are), they ARE (on-the-ground
verifiable) residential. So it is OK for them to be tagged as they
are. They might also receive more detailed tagging in addition to
this simple landuse polygon, a highway=residential street running
through them, and not much else. These "skeletal" data are largely
what are in OSM now across much of the USA, yes, I and many others
know. However, buildings, address data, and other micro-mapping
detail are being added. BOTH flavors of data are correct. While
skeletal data aren't exactly preferred to "largely complete" data,
they are not incorrect, they are just not as complete as they might
be.
Landuse data should show what actually IS, not "simply" what is zoned
and especially not what is intended. Yes, zoning data are a bit raw,
and may be considered "early" or "a first step" for OSM. They need
updating, they change over time. They may be "too broad" as where 40
acres are tagged as landuse=farmland where only 39 of them actually
are landuse=farmland, but one acre is a house (landuse=residential)
and perhaps landuse=farmyard where the barn and tractor and
irrigation supplies are. Would I rather see this perfectly mapped in
OSM, exactly as I describe such micro-mapped details? Yes,
absolutely. Will I say that tagging all 40 acres as landuse=farmland
is "totally incorrect?" No, though if I or somebody else has the
time to tag with those better details, OSM sure will appreciate it.
Should OSM show landuse=commercial because the County Supervisors
just approved a shopping center be built on this farmland in the
future? Absolutely not, especially if it is still a working farm and
no construction has yet started.
Are we all agreed? Thanks for good, productive discussion.
SteveA
California
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
