Pieren wrote: > It doesn't fail so much because most of the time, landuse values are > exclusive (residential, industrial, forest, etc). It is already enough > complicated to add polygones or multipolygones for landuse. We can see > that this is only done in countrysides or small urban areas but not in > towns/cities. We cannot ask people to create a second polygon which > will most of the time be a copy of the landuse : "land covered by > buildings used for residential" or "land covered by trees used for > trees farm". I think we should better enforce landuse to be exclusive > by removing the non-exclusive values like military.
Residential isn't exclusive at all. Not to say that what it's actually used for in OSM can have different meanings amongst different mappers. You'll find many parks in OSM for example inside a residential polygon. I've never seen holes in a landuse=residential polygon at locations where shops are. By far most uses I've seen for landuse=residential are for areas which are generally used for where people live, and usually have entire villages or cities inside one polygon. That's not ground cover, that's telling what the area is used for. Proper ground cover would have no such thing as a "residential area". It would have tags for "building" (and subtags for what kind of building it is), or "garden". I'm not saying that current landuse=residential/industrial/... doesn't have any merit. It's quite nice to make maps for big areas. But at the level where you start to show individual buildings only proper ground cover can be used. Either the landuse=residential/industrial/... kind of tags have to move out of the landuse key, or we have to come up with something new. Now, ground cover in OSM is made up of several tags under different keys (like natural or landuse), while same keys can often be found to map usage instead of ground cover, resulting in conflicts (like the original discussion of this thread where landuse=military can also be many other things; a farm could have crop fields, meadows, orchards, ). It's just such a mess now and things need to be split up and thoroughly revised or we'll regularly end up in discussions like this in future. Ben _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
