# Should the edges of landuse=* or boundary=* areas share points with streets that form their borders?

 14 3 ... especially the when street is a multi-lane divided road? The alternative is, of course, to have the run parallel at the edge of the road. I can see both sides of it. The ways are naturally aligned and in a way are the same, but the trees don't extend into the middle of the street. asked 24 May '11, 21:48 Larry Butler 265●3●6●7 accept rate: 100% aseerel4c26 ♦ 32.4k●17●241●554

 17 In short: no. While landuse areas can (and probably should) share nodes with other areas they are touching like the boundary of next landuse area or the riverbank way they should not share nodes with a street. The reason is - as you correctely stated - that the trees don't extend into the middle of the street. Once we start to map streets the same way as rivers that is with a centerline way for routing and and closed boundary way to record extend then landuse areas should probably share nodes with that outer way. Note however that you should not needlessly change the mapping if a user mapped an area using shared nodes between landuse areas and roads. It's a lot of work which doesn't help much but can introduce a lot of subtile problems. answered 25 May '11, 06:48 petschge 8.1k●20●71●98 accept rate: 21% 1 I don't think you can just answer this with "no"; as Gnonthgol's answer explains, there are pros and cons for both approaches. Still, +1 for a well-reasoned explanation of the possible problems. (25 May '11, 10:26) sleske 4 yes best to keep nodes separate as changes will mess up other stuff when editing. common nodes can save a little time but can be a real pain later (25 May '11, 10:27) andy mackey
 12 There are different opinions on this, and both methods have advantages and disadvantages. Both methods are "correct", none is "wrong". A good rule of thumb is: If you know the precice boundaries of the object you are mapping then try to include this in the data. If you are uncertain of the exact boundary of the object do not make up some arbitrary data. Respect the work of others. That means that if you for instance are mapping a forest from good arial photos, let the boundary go parallel to the road where you see the forest ending and the road area starting. If you for instance have surveyed the area and know that the forest runs up to the road then let the forest and the road share ways. If someone else has mapped something using one method, do not switch to the other method unless you are actually editing the are and feel you make the switch in order to carry on with your work. You should not let several ways share too many nodes as this may become hard to edit; if a long road forms the edge of a forest and you want to re-use the road geometry, create a multipolygon relation for the forest and make the road one of the "outer" members of that. answered 24 May '11, 22:16 Gnonthgol ♦ 13.6k●15●101●198 accept rate: 16% Frederik Ramm ♦ 77.4k●88●689●1198 4 With the acquired experience, I share the view that shapes should not share other shapes' nodes for further selecting and editing. Let me share with you my technique: - I first create an area which shares nodes thanks to the Potlach2 "F" shortcut to follow the node. - When I have closed the area, I create a parallel way with the "P" shortcut and move slightly the mouse to get a way very close to the first one - I tag the second area as wanted - I select again the first created area and then delete it - I save the work Any comment on this? (06 May '12, 11:01) gerdami 1 Excellent procedure for P2 mappers (22 Mar '13, 23:29) andy mackey
 5 In general, the meadow starts beside the road and not in the middle of it. In general, the limits of a country do not grow or shrink with the forest. Etc. Furthermore people tracing roads and boundaries usually work with a higher degree of precision than landuse which they often meet as long straight lines. No blame but it is unpleasant to have to detach the landuse from everywhere when improving roads. So, please attach landuse only to landuse and the person who will rework the road will feel like improving your landuse instead of pushing it aside. answered 22 Mar '13, 17:50 GentilPapou 160●1●4●6 accept rate: 0%
 0 This question still seems to be referred to despite its age. The main principle in this matter is to respect the mapping of other users, and that there are numerous different opinions about the correct way of mapping these adjacent features. In March 2021 the subject of how to map land cover & land use features, in relation to adjacent highways was discussed on talk-gb[https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2021-March/026507.html]. There was a wide ranging discussion, but no clear consensus about how the features should be mapped. Where those features border with a highway, the mapper should avoid using shared nodes if possible. answered 27 Mar, 14:28 Tallguy 96●2●3●7 accept rate: 50% Note that you can add a road width. That solves the void issue and allows us to map landuse as it actually exists on the ground. Point certainly taken about undoing others' work. (02 Apr, 03:44) Joel Amos
 toggle preview community wiki:

By Email:

Markdown Basics

• *italic* or _italic_
• **bold** or __bold__
• image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
• numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
• to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
• basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:

×186
×96
×14

question asked: 24 May '11, 21:48

question was seen: 10,066 times

last updated: 07 Apr, 00:26