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 <m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us> wrote: > Vào lúc 18:40 2020-09-22, Paul Johnson đã viết: > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:36 PM Mike N > > <nice...@att.net > > <mailto:nice...@att.net>> 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 > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-June/011131.html> > 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
