|
Hi folks, Several times I encounter whole towns/villages ambiguously mapped as So what is the best practice regarding this? Would I delete the large residential area polygon as the extent of build-up can be seen with mapped features now? Or do I simply try to fine-tune its extent (most of the time it is very general)? Thank you. |
|
I was going to write "yes, delete it", but then I realized that the polygon might, at least in some cases, serve as a good place to put the place=X tag on. Remove the landuse tag, though. Rationale: It is pointless to have overlapping, conflicting landuses. This is typical OSM iterative refinement. Stuff gets mapped coarsely at first and then replaced by better data. Having place=X,name=Y tags on a polygon and not on a point is potentially useful, because it shows the extent of the place, for example telling renderers how much "wiggle room" they have in placing labels. Good point. Thanks 😉
(31 May '18, 14:12)
Privatemajory
Oftentimes I see landuse=residential being used when place=neighborhood and/or an administrative boundary is more appropriate.
(02 Jun '18, 04:45)
Baloo Uriza
Well, I also think the place=* tag is best put on an administrative boundary. I don't really like the idea putting it on often vague limits of built-up / groups of buildings.
(03 Jun '18, 08:03)
Privatemajory
By all means, if there are appropriate admin borders to put place=tags on, do so. However, don't let the absence of admin borders stop you from putting place tags! For example, the smallest legally regognized administrative subdivision of Sweden is a kommun (admin_level=7), and some of those are... big: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/935541
(04 Jun '18, 08:06)
turepalsson
|
