Background

I have read the discussion on tag:launduse=residential and see three usage. I focus on the first two only. These are:

1) split residential areas into blocks that do not contain any streets 2) restrict such splitting to major thoroughfares

My main mapping focus is on paths, footpaths and roads for walking. In doing that I often find polygon edges for areas (scrub, wood, forest landuse etc) and highways (roads, paths etc) are very close together and often are joined at some or all of their nodes.

For my part of the world, usage 1) streets not included is the exclusive usage.

When attempting to add, remove or adjust the line for a path I regularly find I have to adjust the edges of one or more area polygons. In doing this for landuse=residential I have found different standards by which the edge was originally placed. As often as not close to the line for the road and well outside, relatively speaking, the residential properties themselves.

In those circumstances I have felt tempted to simplify the presentation to usage 2) above.

Request

To help me decide what to do in future would readers please offer discussion on this matter.

asked 24 Mar '19, 17:28

AlwynWellington's gravatar image

AlwynWellington
11224
accept rate: 0%

As mentioned by InsertUser, there's debate regarding whether landuse should extend to the centerline or to the edge of the road. However, I think both sides would probably agree that mapping it to somewhere in between the two, as described above, would be "wrong".

(25 Mar '19, 15:53) alester

There appear to be varied opinions on this.

On node merging:

Some think landuse that goes up to a road should share geometry with the road (or path).

Others think that the landuse should end where the use actually physically stops (some distance form the road centreline). Some who support this have proposed landuse=highway to eliminate the "gaps" visible at high zooms. This would be similar to river tagging which has a logical 'way' and a series of areas for extents.

Personally, I find it far easier to edit the map when the nodes aren't merged.

On Splitting:

For your numbered items I tend to prefer 2 as I tend to think that e.g. residential roads go through residential areas rather than dividing them. If the areas on each side of a road have different names (or other properties) I would expect them to be split, but otherwise be continuous. I would also say that a major road can go through a residential area, but again opinions differ on all of this.

A final thing to note is that if local mappers in your area seem to have settled on one way of doing things, it is probably best to engage with them before introducing any sweeping changes.

permanent link

answered 25 Mar '19, 09:23

InsertUser's gravatar image

InsertUser
9.1k755154
accept rate: 20%

4

I think the majority would be in favour of NOT having landuses extend up to the highway (or waterway) centre line. I wouldn't obsess about "not having filled in all the landuse".

(25 Mar '19, 19:11) SomeoneElse ♦
Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • 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:

×39

question asked: 24 Mar '19, 17:28

question was seen: 632 times

last updated: 25 Mar '19, 19:11

powered by OSQA