Yes - I think Anthony makes the case very well and gives a clearer response to Chris than I did! I think the distinction between landuse=forest (where the tracks - and even roads - are normally regarded as part of the forest) and some of the other landuse= is sensible. I also agree that there is a different set of criteria that apply between the abutment and the cut-across cases. As for a new landuse=road_something, that seems helpful for micro-mapping, especially in urban areas. I would counsel against using landuse=right_of_way, however, because the term "right of way" has specific legal implications in some jurisdictions and might not apply in all cases (e.g. a private or unadopted residential road). In the UK, at least, the "highway" in law usually extends for the whole area between the adjacent land areas - i.e. it includes the carriageway upon which vehicles travel as well as the verges, which might be grass, dirt, paved footways (with or without cycleways), etc. Thus this area would normally completely fill the real-world 'gap' between adjacent landuse areas, e.g landuse=residential, commercial, farm, forest, etc. [Chris: a nice rural example near you would be the several green lanes in and around Great Barrow; some are private and others are footpaths, bridleways or even restricted byways. Most of the area was owned by the Marquess of Cholmondeley but when he sold most of it to individual farming landowners in 1919 he retained ownership of many of the green lanes - and to the best of my knowledge he is still the landowner of these between the fences/hedges that separate them on either side from the adjacent farmland.] This suggests that the area tag might even be landuse=highway! Mike Harris
_____ From: Anthony [mailto:o...@inbox.org] Sent: 06 October 2009 17:30 To: John Smith; c.mor...@gaseq.co.uk Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Landuse areas etc. abutting highways On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:56 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com> wrote: 2009/10/7 Anthony <o...@inbox.org>: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:21 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> 2009/10/7 Anthony <o...@inbox.org>: >> > Most sidewalks pretty much meet that criterion, and roads sort of meet >> > it >> > (not at intersections, though). >> >> There is a landuse area around roads that isn't part of surrounding >> property boundaries. > > I'm quite aware of that, and that's why I think there should be a > landuse=right_of_way, completely separate from the "highway". > > I wonder, how do others define "highway", if not as "a path of travel"? It > contains such things as roads, sidewalks, and dirt paths, and presumably > also includes paths of travel which are completely unbuilt (the unpaved > grass on the side of the road gets a "highway" tag, right?)." > landuse=road_reserve ? I'm not sure they're always used for roads, but good enough! I'm planning on implementing this, probably in the next few weeks (though it may be a few months, and I may have a small scale run within a week or two). Should I use landuse=road_reserve, landuse=right_of_way, or not bother tagging those areas at all? On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Chris Morley <c.mor...@gaseq.co.uk> wrote: Landuse areas which cross a large number of ways are very common. Surely you don't intend to divide say, Delamere Forest, into a large number of separated areas separated by the paths and tracks? In that case, you shouldn't, because the paths and tracks are part of the forest. Likewise, you wouldn't split the landuse at a service highway which goes through a landuse=commercial. But that's not an example of "landuse" abutting a "highway", it's an example of a "highway" cutting through a "landuse". "Landuse" and "highway" are really independent concepts, aren't they? The main counterexample where you *would* have a "landuse" abutting a "highway" is in the case of "pedestrian areas", which are tagged as "highway" in addition to being tagged as "landuse", right? Whether or not a "highway" should cut through a "landuse=residential" or "landuse=farm" is probably jurisdiction dependent. Where I live there are specific areas of land set aside for roads and other specific areas of land set aside for houses. Seems to me like a clear case for separate "landuse" areas, no? If you don't have the data to separate out the two, that's fine. I don't mind "highway" ways cutting through "landuse" areas so much. But that's not the same as using the "highway" way as the border to your "landuse" area. The only way I can see doing that is when the "landuse" area is *also* a "highway" area.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
